Historical Jesus

[Lumpenproletariat]

What special unique historical conditions
made the reported Jesus miracle-worker necessary?
to the exclusion of any others, before and after?

He's absolutely correct that the worship of Jesus was a very unusual and unique event. But this did not come about because Jesus was a supernatural messiah who worked real miracles. Instead he was just a charismatic and talented man who was in the right place at the right time.

This could be said of millions of others also, who were charismatic and talented and were in the right place at the right time.

Or, if this means there was something about Judea-Galilee at about 30 AD which was THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE AND RIGHT TIME ever in history, maybe it could be said of several hundred others, or thousands who were also charismatic and talented and were there at that time.

And yet there's nothing which makes that place and time uniquely special in all of history. Every place and time has its special features, and some points in history are more special than others. We might say there have been 100 other places/times in history which were really special, in a unique way, like Judea-Galilee about 30 AD was special. There's no way to calculate exactly how "special" and "unique" it was, but it's ridiculous to single out this one place-time in history as being the most special and unique ever.

Of course we mean that it had this specialness-uniqueness BEFORE Jesus appeared there in history, because it was then ready (the stage was set) to produce the world's only reported miracle-worker for whom there is evidence at the time (though he's fictional!), in written accounts, and this was predetermined somehow, with written accounts to emerge claiming these events happened -- claiming it really happened, as NON-fiction -- with a miracle-worker resurrecting back to life after being killed, and this attested to in 4 (5) written accounts near the time -- all predetermined to happen due to the unusual or special conditions unique to that time only in all history.

If the same unique special conditions had existed anywhere else, we would see a similar reported miracle-worker appearance in that other place-time also. But we don't see it anywhere else, and so the only conclusion to draw is that this special uniqueness was proper to one place only in all history, over several thousand years.


The overall time period in history

To keep it simple, we might limit the time period from about 3000 BC to about 1000 AD. It's OK to put limits to the time spread. Sometime after 1000 AD there developed new mass publishing on a scale unimaginable earlier, which drastically changed the conditions, and this adds great confusion trying to make comparisons of the ancient times to the modern period of mass media and the Internet etc. So for simplicity, let's say that over a 4000-year period (or maybe a 3000-year period), to about 1000 (or 1500) AD, there was one special time-place in history, and only this one, where we can explain this disruption into history of a reported miracle-worker such as there is no other example anywhere showing any comparison. And this hypothetically must have been caused by something special which happened in this period. Or, in a special point or short span during the longer 3000- or 4000-year period.

What is "this period" exactly? or approximately? It must be something like a span from about 20 BC to about 50 AD, or some such designation. Maybe 100 BC to 100 AD. So, somewhere within this time span, and also at this location only, Judea-Galilee, the "Holy Land" or "Palestine" or "the Bible lands" etc. -- this particular region of the world was predetermined to have pop up in it a reported miracle-worker unlike any other such reported character in all the literature, from centuries back to centuries later. No such phenomenon like this occurs elsewhere.

Fictional characters pop up in the folklore and literature throughout all these times and places, not limited to only one time-place to the exclusion of others. But in this one time-place alone in history it was predestined by the forces at work in the historical development that such a reported character is to pop up in history, though he'd be fictional, or his reported miracle acts would be fictional. And no such reported character could appear at any other time-place, but this one only, i.e., early 1st century, or maybe 20 BC to 50 AD, or 100 BC to 100 AD. And it's predestined that there can be ONLY ONE such reported character within this period, not 2 or 3 or 4, but just one only, as the special unique conditions of this time-place exclude that any other could also reportedly appear. That is, the demands of the period, or special conditions requiring such a reported character to appear, are satisfied only if this one appears uniquely, alone, with no other one also appearing (in evidence or multiple written sources).

So this is not just about the "Messiah" expectation in those times, because there were many "Messiah" type characters who popped up in this period, and other periods too, earlier and later. But none of them is reported in multiple accounts as performing miracle acts and resurrecting from the dead. None of them comes even close to the case of this one in about 30 AD in Galilee, so there are no COMPETING Messiahs who were barely edged out by this one in some kind of contest between them.


Was John the Baptist another "Messiah" competing with Jesus?

Such a CONTEST is imagined by some debunkers, who suggest that maybe John the Baptist was also believed to be the Messiah, by his fans cheering him on, and gave Jesus a tough competitive race for this honor, with Jesus being the winner in this race, beating out the Baptist in a close squeaker -- almost "too close to call"?

Certainly the Baptist was also a "charismatic and talented man" at that same time and place. He was probably more talented and charismatic than Jesus, considering the writings of the time. And yet no one (or virtually no one) made him out to be a resurrected miracle-worker. So, what was it that John lacked but which Jesus had which caused so many to make Jesus into the predestined miracle-worker savior rising from the dead, but not also John? or not John instead?

There had to be something, such that John got no such recognition at all. Nor did anyone else. Something in the special conditions unique to that time-place required that there could be ONLY ONE of these, and it had to be Jesus rather than John or any other of several who were of higher status and recognition than Jesus was. So, what was so unique and special about this time period which swept in and grabbed Jesus for this role and rejected all the others? many of whom were more important and more widely recognized than Jesus?


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Every religion awaits its "Messiah" of one kind or another.

So, what's special about Judea-Galilee in the 1st century?



(continued from previous Wall of Text)

First, Judaism is very different than other religions of the time. Jews tend to be intensely religious; they ask questions; they await a messiah.

Most or all religions then and now are the same in this way.

Here's a website which says Hindus and Buddhists both were awaiting their Messiah centuries earlier than the time of Jesus.

There are many Messiah-type ideas of a future Savior figure who is to come.

Zoroastrians long before Jesus were awaiting their Messiah figure, Saoshyant:

Saoshyans, in Zoroastrian eschatology, final saviour of the world and quencher of its evil; he is the foremost of three saviours (the first two are Ōshētar and Ōshētarmāh) who are all posthumous sons of Zoroaster. One will appear at the end of each of the three last millennia of the world, miraculously conceived by a maiden who has swum in a lake where Zoroaster’s seed was preserved. After 57 years Saoshyans, aided by 30 great persons of the departed who have remained linked with bodily existence, will break the . . .
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Saoshyans

There are many theories that Judaism borrowed its messiah idea from the Zoroastrians. Definitely there are such influences on Judaism from the other middle-east regions. Probably Egyptian monotheism influenced early Judaism/Moses/Exodus.

All the religions are serious and ask questions and have beliefs about some final end-of-the-world climax or scenario where the Ultimate God intervenes to save the world in one way or another. Some anticipate a world-history event which will be normal but special, ushering in change. Some of the American tribes believed the arriving Conquistadors were some ancient God reappearing or returning back to them.

And Jews had many divergent ideas about this "Messiah" kind of figure. Isaiah called Persian King Cyrus Yahweh's "Messiah" (Isaiah 45:1). There is little agreement or harmony among the messiah-believers about what this "Messiah" is supposed to be. That he is to be a political "King"-successor to David is only one version of the Messiah. The Qumran community believed in TWO Messiahs, one a kingly figure and the other a priestly figure, and both of these to rule together. Sure, one popular idea in the 1st century envisioned a new Jewish political "King of the Jews" -- but then again, Israel had already had their "King" earlier -- King Herod the Great, and many Jews did NOT want any such future "Messiah" as that. It's definitely incorrect to presume that most Jews were eagerly awaiting another "Messiah" King Herod to come in Glory to replace the Roman Emperor or the Roman-appointed Governor.

So the Jewish "Messiah" vision of that time was a very confusing idea and very little as a distinctive feature of Judaism. Most Jews did not specifically await such a figure other than as a very loose and abstract future vision, just hoping for some kind of better world. Common to all religions in one way or another.

Nothing about the Jewish "Messiah" idea explains why this one unimportant Galilean person in 30 AD got deified into a Resurrected Divine miracle-worker Savior figure, documented in writings of the time attesting to his miracle acts, in multiple sources, unlike any other figure of ancient history. And nothing about the 1st century Jewish events explains this unprecedented interruption into history, of a reported miracle-worker into a culture which knew virtually no such thing for many centuries, and showed no sign of expecting such an event.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Mystery ghost writing

NO THE GOSPEL STORIES ARE NOT FACTS WITH EVIDENCE OR CORROBORATION

Same evidence as for other historical events, and corroboration -- Multiple sources saying it happened. Sources near the time of the reported events, containing fact and fiction, like all other writings, and all other historical facts we know.

99% of all history you know is based on this kind of evidence. You can't name any that's not known this way.

 

[bilby]

99% of all history you know is based on this kind of evidence. You can't name any that's not known this way.

That was bullshit the last time you said it.

It hadn't stopped being bullshit since then, so you really have no excuse for repeating it again.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Most history you know is from the ancient writings
not from archaeology.

99% of all history you know is based on this kind of evidence. You can't name any that's not known this way.

That was bullshit the last time you said it.

It hadn't stopped being bullshit since then, so you really have no excuse for repeating it again.

You're right. You required about a week of research to finally come up with one fact of history known through archaeology and not through the written record. But you finally found something -- good for you! so it's true that if you study hard enough, looking up new sources, with enough effort pouring through websites, it's possible to find an historical fact known only through archaeology.

But during all that research you had to do -- all those hours and days of searching -- you could have rattled off hundreds of historical facts you already knew, with no new research.

How about naming 10 or 20 facts of (ancient) history we all know, without doing any new research, which are known by us all. E.g.:

1. Caesar Augustus was the first official Emperor of Rome.
2. Julius Caesar was assassinated.
3. Socrates was condemned to death.
4. Solon was an Athenian law-giver.
5. Charlemagne was crowned "Emperor" by the Pope.
6. Alexander the Great croaked in about 323 BC.
7. Mohammed founded a new religion.
8. Zoroaster founded a new religion.
9. Buddha founded a new religion.
10. Romans destroyed the Jerusalem temple in about 70 AD.

Those are facts we all know, all from writings. Can you name 10 historical facts we all know, based on archaeological findings only, not on writings? No, you can't name them.

This proves that 99% (maybe only 90% or 95%) of our known history is based on the writings left behind, rather than on archaeological findings. So when you reject the writings as a source, you have to explain why you believe so much history which comes only from the writings.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What was unique about Judaism?
that only it would produce a resurrected miracle-messiah? but not the others?


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Other religions had very different characters.

Sure, every religion, including Judaism, had its own special characters, different from the others. That doesn't explain what was special about the 1st century, which was predestined to put forth the only reported miracle-worker in history for whom there is evidence, i.e., for whom we have written sources from the time documenting the miracle acts he did. Nothing unique about the Jewish characters explains why such a reported miracle-worker should appear especially at that point in history and nowhere else.

Second, the Jews were very upset that their country was controlled by Gentile Romans.

Others too were just as upset about the same thing. The Greeks were equally upset about rule over them by Macedonia earlier, and later by Rome. The Gauls were upset and fought and shed blood trying to throw off the Roman yoke. And earlier countries fought against the Babylonians and Egyptians and Assyrians and Hittites etc., empires which oppressed weaker nations. None of these other cases of oppression by an Empire caused a unique reported miracle-worker to appear, who resurrected from the dead. Nothing about being oppressed by an Empire causes a new miracle-worker to appear in history, documented in written accounts of the time.

Spartacus was a hero, and legend, which might have been produced by an oppressive Empire. But this didn't make him into a resurrected miracle-worker.

Other people might figure one dictator was as good as another (or even that Roman rule was better than the alternative) but this proud religious people resented their heathen rulers, and the corruption of their own religious authorities.

Same as other peoples, who also resented the foreign rule imposed onto them. There are several such episodes of oppression by a heathen ruler, and opposition and resistance to the oppressor. Of one ruler-tyrant with his foot on the neck of another nation, stomping them down. And of resistance, rebellion, overthrow of the oppressor. Or of failed rebellion and the rebels butchered by the thousands. There's nothing unique about the Jews vs. Rome in the 1st century.

These factors meant that many people in Judaea, Samaria and Galilee had anger, anxiety, neuroses, and felt deprived spiritually.

That's nothing unique in history -- found only in that one place. Or, if it was unique to that place, it should have produced several other "Messiah" miracle-workers reported in the written accounts of the time. Why should the Jesus of 30 AD be the only one reported in the written record of the time? Why would one "Messiah" figure only be just right for all those neurotics with all their different spiritual problems? all the same? "one size fits all"?

No, there'd be several of them, competing for those many different Messiah-seekers.

They yearned for a messiah.

Others did also, in other cultures and nations which felt oppression. And it's not true that ALL Jews yearned for such a messiah. Their past experience with a "King of the Jews" had been a negative experience as much as something positive. Many were fed up with having their own national KING-tyrant and preferred to let the Empire have control as the lesser evil.

This isn't disputed: That the Jewish lands abounded with would-be messiahs at that time is well known.

Let's assume this might be so (though it's not proved) -- i.e., that Jewish lands perhaps had a greater number of "messiah"-types, or charlatans, claiming some kind of Divine Status, or rightful Authority to impose the Divine Law onto the nation, or onto the tribe, etc.

There are cases similar to this, like the TYRANTS in the Greek city states, demagogues who competed with others to take power and get recognized, claiming to be sent by the gods to rule. Also different prophets and priests and witch-doctors all claiming to have authority from the gods, denouncing the others as demonic or ungodly.

But even if we assume Jewish lands had more of this than other nations, how does that cause a reported miracle-worker to appear and become the only one documented in multiple accounts near the time he allegedly did his miracle acts? Why shouldn't this instead cause the appearance in the record of MANY such reported miracle-workers rather than only one? several of them all claiming to be the one sent from God to save the nation? How did the number of these "messiah" claimants get whittled down to one only? and there's no writings about any others?

Why is it that the only new writings which have been discovered continue to report on this one-only miracle-working resurrected messiah and on no others? If he was the only one, WHY was he? Why were there no others?

Why is there no other miracle-worker character to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example? and in the many other new writings discovered which date back to the same time, before the Roman Catholic Church (300 AD and later)? Vast amounts of new literature, new scrolls have been discovered which the Church knew nothing about at that time. Why do these say nothing about any other Jesus-like miracle-workers who reportedly did miracle acts? written near the time it happened, if it happened? Why shouldn't that culture, having so many "Messiah" claimants everywhere not have produced any other such case, in the writings, telling us about some other miracle-workers? Why should all the messianic and apocalyptic factions not have given us a variety of such characters, reflecting the wide variety of "Messiah" visions which were popular?

Why do they all give us this one only? If it was this atmosphere of so many "Messiah" claimants abounding which produced the miracle Jesus Galilee figure of about 30 AD, why did so many diverse "Messiah" seekers all agree on this one only? They should have produced many messiahs, not only one.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Swammerdami]

Everybody's got an opinion and an elbow: there are billions of different human elbows on the planet.

But FACTS are much rarer and much more precious. I hope we can find agreement on some facts.

First, Judaism is very different than other religions of the time. Jews tend to be intensely religious; they ask questions; they await a messiah.

Most or all religions then and now are the same in this way.

Polytheistic religions are very different from monotheistic religions. The former had no problem incorporating another God or three -- and were forced to do so by their Roman conquerors. They might not even have had a problem agreeing that Jupiter was the Chief God: They probably already quibbled amongst themselves which of their own Gods were most important.

The Jews, on the other hand, refused to worship Rome's pagan Gods, despite that this was a condition for amicable admission to the Empire.

The religions that Rome had the most problems with were monotheistic—Judaism and Christianity. Because these religions believed there was just one god, they prohibited worshiping other gods. Their members refused to make offerings to Roman gods or take part in Roman religious festivals, which Rome considered a matter of showing loyalty. These religions tested Roman tolerance.

In 63 B.C., the Romans conquered Judea, the land of the Jews. Rome immediately recognized it had a problem because the Jews refused to pay homage to Roman gods. Rome gave in and exempted Jews from this requirement. Rome did this in part because the Jews had helped Roman general Julius Caesar win an important battle several years earlier. Soon Rome recognized Judaism as a legal religion, allowing Jews to worship freely.

But Rome viewed the Jews with suspicion and persecuted them on several occasions.

And while Rome may have tolerated the Jews' monotheism they promoted corrupt Temple officials and used the Temple as part of their own power base. Naturally this further angered and embittered Jews, whether devout or not.

(this Wall of Text to be continued)

Thanks, I guess.

Same evidence as for other historical events, and corroboration -- Multiple sources saying it happened. Sources near the time of the reported events, containing fact and fiction, like all other writings, and all other historical facts we know.

99% of all history you know is based on this kind of evidence. You can't name any that's not known this way.

Bilby posted an example of a fact not known from written evidence. If it took him days to post, I'm sure it took him little if any actual research time. He is diligently fighting ignorance in many other threads as well.

Off the top of my head:
* The detailed evolution and spread of wheeled wagons and carts during the Copper and Early Bronze Age is known from physical evidence, not written records.
* Roman garrisons in Britain housed soldiers from several distant parts of the Empire. The geographical mapping is known from present-day DNA studies! rather than written records.
* The aversion of SOME early Canaanites to eating pork is known NOT from writing, but from analysis of waste bones by archaeologists.

Sometimes LACK of written records is itself evidence. Did the books Shaksper owned contain the historical information which permeated his plays? He owned no books. Did Shaksper's letters mesh with what we might expect from a playwright? He wrote no letters.

Similarly it is the ABSENCE of written accounts about Jesus' miracle-working that should lay to rest the claim that he worked miracles.

First, I have presented over and over and over clear evidence that the stories in Matthew and Luke of miracles worked by the living adult Jesus were all borrowed from Mark. Each time Lumpen goes silent for a few days . . . and then repeats, over and over and over, the falsehood that these are independent accounts.

The Epistles of Paul were allegedly written EARLIER than the Gospels. As the earliest sources, these are where competent historians would look for reliable information. Yet excepting the Resurrection (see below), Paul mentions NO miracles. Zero. Nada.
No miracles. ZERO

The Resurrection, which Paul DOES mention, is a special case. But for now just note that the earliest copies of Mark, the best bio of the living adult Jesus and allegedly written at least four decades AFTER the alleged Resurrection, mentions the empty tomb but barely hints at any post-Crucifixion sighting.

 

[steve_bank]

What we have a good idea on is from bot archeology and what was written. Multiple independet sources. Paintings and busts.

I read Caesar's Gallic Wars in high school. There is archeological evidence of Rome in Brtian nd Germany.

I read the usual philosophy, like Aristotle and Plato. They were seen and known. Aristotle was known as a tutor to Alexander.

Buddhists have a problem similar to Christians. The stories of who Buddha was are anecdotal. The first

Aesop's Fab;es are attributed to somebody called Aesop, but there were many stories over time under the name Aesop.

Who Aesop was is anecdotal.

Aesop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Aesop (/ˈiːsɒp/ EE-sop or /ˈeɪsɒp/ AY-sop; Greek: Αἴσωπος, Aísōpos; c. 620–564 BCE; formerly rendered as Æsop) was an ancient fabulist and storyteller credited with a number of fables now collectively known as Aesop's Fables. Although his existence remains unclear and no writings by him survive, numerous tales credited to him were gathered across the centuries and in many languages in a storytelling tradition that continues to this day. Many of the tales associated with him are characterized by anthropomorphic animal characters.

Aesop's Fables, the Jesus narrative. That s why I take the gospel Jesus to be likely a composite character and a conflation of events and sayings by a number of people. Pus embellishment with the supernatural.

No matter how you spin it the evidence us slim to nothing on a gospel Jesus.

Christianity hinges on the resurrection story. Somebody wrote that somebody said he or she saw a dead man walking around after burial.

 

[TomC]

Christianity hinges on the resurrection story. Somebody wrote that somebody said he or she saw a dead man walking around after burial.

This is why I find the premise that Jesus didn't die on the cross so plausible.

If Jesus were sufficiently a trouble maker for the Jewish elite to get arrested and turned over to Pilate, condemned to crucifixion after a perfunctory trial, but didn't betray his compadres(even though one of them had just betrayed him) , then survived the crucifixion, everything else makes reasonable sense. No need for miraculous resurrection myths.
That string of highly unusual events, even a unique combination, would probably result in exactly what we see now.
Tom

 

[bilby]

You required about a week of research to finally come up with one fact of history known through archaeology and not through the written record.

I required about a millisecond of memory, but don't let reality get in the way of your bizarre fantasies.

I post here as a hobby; I don't work for you, and I don't prioritise my time here over the rest of my life.

I only posted one fact, because only one counterexample is necessary to destroy a claim of universality.

Now you have shifted from "ALL of history..." to the equally wrong "99% of history...", making your claim much harder to definitively destroy. But not any less wrong.

If you consider "I am still wildly wrong, but now it's too much hassle for anyone to bother to prove it" to be a victory, then congratulations, I guess.

You have certainly demonstrated that a very large percentage of the history YOU know comes ONLY from writings; But that's easy to achieve by the simple expedient of being sure not to know very much, or look anywhere else.

Your subsequent error, of believing that what YOU know is a worthwhile subset of what is known, is so commonplace amongst the ignorant as to be completely unremarkable.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

bilby's proof
that our ancient history knowledge
is mostly from the ancient writings,

not from archaeology

You required about a week of research to finally come up with one fact of history known through archaeology and not through the written record.

I required about a millisecond of memory, but don't let reality get in the way of your bizarre fantasies.

I post here as a hobby; I don't work for you, and I don't prioritise my time here over the rest of my life.

I only posted one fact, because only one counterexample is necessary to destroy a claim of universality.

Now you have shifted from "ALL of history..." to the equally wrong "99% of history...", making your claim much harder to definitively destroy. But not any less wrong.

If you consider "I am still wildly wrong, but now it's too much hassle for anyone to bother to prove it" to be a victory, then congratulations, I guess.

You have certainly demonstrated that a very large percentage of the history YOU know comes ONLY from writings; But that's easy to achieve by the simple expedient of being sure not to know very much, or look anywhere else.

Your subsequent error, of believing that what YOU know is a worthwhile subset of what is known, is so commonplace amongst the ignorant as to be completely unremarkable.

You can prove your point by simply listing a few examples of ancient history facts we all know and which are derived not from the ancient writings but from archaeology. All you gave us was one obscure fact you found somewhere, which is fine. But you're supposed to prove that our knowledge of ancient history comes mostly from archaeology rather than from the written record. That you can offer one obscure fact most of us don't know doesn't suffice.

I listed 10 facts we all know, common facts, which are from the ancient writings. And it would be easy to list dozens more. Since you're so sure our history facts are mainly from archaeology rather than writings, you should be able to offer examples. If you don't do this, it proves you're wrong.

It would be very very easy for you to post those 10 facts if you're right. ---- very very very easy.

 

[bilby]

You can prove your point by simply listing a few examples of ancient history facts we all know and which are derived not from the ancient writings but from archaeology

Meh.

Brandolini's Law applies here in spades.

Your challenge is nonsensical; It derives from your assumptions that:

1) There's such a thing as "facts we all know"

2) There exist isolated facts - claims that can qualify as factual, but which are only supported by a single piece of evidence, or even a single type of evidence

3) That historical factuality is a strictly binary condition - that historians either fully accept or fully reject any given claim

4) That I care enough that you are woefully ignorant - not just of what facts are known, but even of what constitutes a "fact" at all - to waste my time on a challenge that won't alter your opinion regardless



Knowledge is a framework. All knowledge is interrelated and mutually supporting; If you have claims that don't fit, they are wrong, but equally if you have domains that don't integrate - that have no connections between them - then at least one of those domains is valueless.

Your epistemology is fundamentally broken. Your challenge assumes a commonality of epistemology between us that doesn't exist, and your 'challenge' would therefore be futile even if it were not incoherent.

What part of "know" don't you understand?

 

[Swammerdami]

Lumpen contends that historical facts are mainly learned from writing. This might be a tautology, given one definition of history: "a written record of important events and their causes."

But even in a less pedantic viewpoint, Lumpen may be correct that MOST history (after the invention of writing) is learned from writing. But it certainly isn't 100%, as Lumpen seemed to claim earlier IIRC. He has now downgraded the claim to 99%, probably still too high.

I don't recall bilby making a quantitative estimate, other than the obvious fact that -- as Lumpen now finally admits -- the number is less than 100%.

But in all pertinent models of arithmetic, to assert that a number is less than 100% does NOT imply that the number is less than 50%.

The preceding sentence may annoy some readers. After all, few if any Infidels will dispute this arithmetic fact.
And yet ...

Since you're so sure our history facts are mainly from archaeology rather than writings, you should be able to offer examples. If you don't do this, it proves you're wrong.

It would be very very easy for you to post those 10 facts if you're right. ---- very very very easy.

Oh my. Lumpen seems to be pulling a Steve. All credibility is lost when you replace a fellow Infidel's words with completely different words with different meaning.

Name one fact you know which is not based on what is described in the written accounts from the time.

Roman cavalrymen based at Hadrian's Wall slept in a combined barracks and stable, alongside their horses. This is now believed to have been standard practice for cavalry units in the Roman period.

This was unknown until a few years ago, when it became clear from archaeological evidence that it was the arrangement; No written evidence of this exists, likely because it was considered by people at the time to be too obvious and mundane to bother to mention.

A lot of historical facts are derived from archaeological evidence, and not from written sources.

@Lumpen -- Do you think "A lot of" is a synonym of "Most"? If not, can you point to the post where bilby expressed the claim that you claim he claimed?

 

[steve_bank]

Christianity hinges on the resurrection story. Somebody wrote that somebody said he or she saw a dead man walking around after burial.

This is why I find the premise that Jesus didn't die on the cross so plausible.

If Jesus were sufficiently a trouble maker for the Jewish elite to get arrested and turned over to Pilate, condemned to crucifixion after a perfunctory trial, but didn't betray his compadres(even though one of them had just betrayed him) , then survived the crucifixion, everything else makes reasonable sense. No need for miraculous resurrection myths.
That string of highly unusual events, even a unique combination, would probably result in exactly what we see now.
Tom

Yea. I just look at Israel, the Palestinians, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states.
Political intrigue, nationalism, ethnicity, and religion.

Assorted religious leaders and Geo-political religious groups at odds.

In Saudi Arabia blasphemy can get you a death penalty.

Imagine a rabbi in Israel today walking around calling the theo-political leaders hypocritical and leading Israel to doom for what it is doing. Today he would not be stoned to death or crucified, but would not be very popular among Jewish conservative elite. The Zionists.

That there was Jesus and several versions in the day is to be expected.

If there is any truth to it, Paul wrote other Jews were out for his head and he found safety in his Roman citizenship.

Brutality was the norm. Roman crucifixion was routine. At one time Rome crucified people along a main raoad into Rome and left them hanging as a warning.

That soneody in a Jewish movment was tortured and crucified would not be out of the ordinary.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So then, what are the facts? What does the evidence show?
The "evidence" -- the written accounts from those times, which "history" is based on -- shows that

Jesus did perform the miracle acts

unless we throw out the evidence, the written accounts, of history,
the ancient documents, without which we'd have virtually none of our historical facts
(the historical facts we all know and take for granted).


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Note, by the way, that neurotic Jews would have been prone to psychosomatic illnesses. In fact -- Citation for this, anyone? -- these people 2000 years ago might have been particularly prone to certain psychosomatic diseases, e.g. apparent "demonic possession."

There's no reason to think this particular time-place -- Galilee-Judea near 30 AD -- had more "demonic possession" cases than other times-places in the ancient world. Such claims, beliefs, superstitions, were just as common at all the other times and places. But in this one case only we have written accounts of cures, meaning the victims ("possessed" ones) recovered from their deranged state when the "exorcism" was performed by Jesus. There are no other reported cases of such cures or recoveries by the victims in other exorcism stories in the literature -- i.e., Jewish or pagan literature. From the descriptions, they must be understood as cases of mental disease, mental derangement, etc. That they were called "demonic" or "possessions" etc. should not blind us to what the actual empirical events were that took place. No one "made up" these stories. These were real events, described in the popular language of the time, and superstitious elements were probably added. No one (Christians or Jews or pagans) could have invented these stories. The only realistic explanation is that something real did happen, something unusual, and a mentally-deranged victim seemed to recover.

Other exorcism accounts? There is reference to "demon possession" etc. in other literature than the Gospel accounts of the Jesus exorcisms. What we have in other literature -- the Dead Sea Scrolls are an example -- are descriptions of treatments or rituals performed for the demon-possessed, and these rituals are described in detail, i.e., the exact procedures to be followed by the exorcist or priest. But there are no narrative accounts of such rituals being performed and then the victim actually recovering or returning to normal mental condition, such as we see with the Jesus exorcisms described in the Synoptic Gospels.

So, in the Jesus stories we see examples of victims being cured of mental illness in one form or another. Whereas in other literature we have only descriptions of TREATMENTS to be used, or RITUALS, but no reports of anyone cured, or recovering, and returning to sound mind.


Other exorcisms in any written accounts

There are only 2 sources reporting exorcisms: Josephus and Philostratus.
(If there are others, fine. Dig them out and post it here.)

Josephus reports an exorcist in his Antiquities of the Jews (book 8, chapter 2.5(42). This character performs an "exorcism," but there's no recovery of the victim reported by Josephus. All he reports is that a container of water was somehow knocked over when the demon exited the victim's body.

In the Philostratus biography of Apollonius of Tyana there are 2 or 3 exorcisms reported. Let's assume these might be legitimate narrations of a victim recovering. Even if we grant this, we have to consider that Philostratus (writing about 220 AD) was familiar with the Gospel accounts, from which he definitely plagiarized one miracle cure story (Luke 7:11-17). So he knew of the reported miracles of Jesus, which he seems to have used as a model for a miracle or 2 in his Apollonius biography. His stories about Apollonius date from at least 120 years later than the reported event(s), and he's the only source for them. So these stories don't have credibility for anything unusual like a miracle event.

So if you want to bring up the exorcism stories, you need to explain why we have no other documented credible cases of such healings, where the victim recovers; but instead we have only descriptions of healing procedures or treatments to cast out the devils, but no reported cases of a victim recovering for which there is serious evidence. By contrast, we have 3 sources for Jesus doing these miracle healings, and they are dated within 40-70 years from when the reported event(s) happened. This is good evidence for ancient history events, being better evidence than we have for most of our ancient history events which we routinely believe.

That it's reported in multiple sources or written accounts, from the historical period when it reportedly happened, is good evidence that the reported event happened, as everyone here in this message board has had to admit is good evidence, because everyone agrees that such written documents are the main evidence we rely on for our ancient history events, and without such written evidence we'd have very little of our recognized ancient history record.

Conditions may have been ripe for a charismatic healer to perform cures that seemed miraculous.

If that were true there should appear other cases of this also, and not only one. There is no other case, at this or other times, in all the ancient history record of a healer performing miracle healing acts before several witnesses. It's very difficult to find any other case of something like this.


The Asclepius inscriptions, testimonials

The closest is the case of the Asclepius Temple where worshipers of this ancient deity went to be treated for their physical ailments. (All the evidence for the Asclepius reported miracles is in Asclepius, Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, by Emma and Ludwig Edelstein.)

There are several hundred testimonials to Asclepius experiences at the Temple. The vast majority are not miracle cures. Some are just encounters where the disciple feels comforted or inspired. Most relate some kind of treatment, therapy, counseling, prescription, and in a few cases there is a reported unusual cure experience, and maybe as many as a dozen of these might be in the "miracle" category, where something bizarre happens. Maybe this is good evidence -- it's debatable. If actually there was a rare miracle, there's nothing wrong with it. It's fine if a miracle did happen at some time or place other than the Jesus miracle healings. Of course the historical Asclepius was never present, but only the ritual performed in honor of the ancient deity, so it was always the Asclepius priest at the time, who did the procedure, like clerics throughout history and also today do their routine rituals and pray for the sick. And of course a victim sometimes claims a miracle recovery happened.

However, the "Conditions may have been ripe" explanation does not fit the facts, in the Asclepius case, because all the actual miracle stories of Asclepius occurred in a particular time frame different than that of the Jesus period, of about 30 AD. At this time there were no Asclepius reported miracles. For all the Asclepius miracle healings, where something bizarre happened which cannot be explained as normal medical or therapy or psychological experiences, the time period was prior to 300 BC (or possibly as late as 250 BC), and then again resuming at about 100 AD when these "miracle" healing stories begin happening again. In other words, there is an unusual GAP in the Asclepius stories, which runs from about 300 BC to about 100 AD. So a 400-year gap appears (or 350-year gap), during which the Asclepius miracle reports stopped, and then they resume near 100 AD. So during the time of Jesus (or about 300 BC - 50 AD), there are no reported miracle healing stories appearing anywhere. The case of Jesus at about 30 AD is all alone, with nothing else appearing, no claims at all in the literature, for any miracle-workers doing such things during this time. (So "conditions may have been ripe" for a healing miracle-worker? Shouldn't this mean there were several of them? rather than none?)

The only exceptions to this, the very few cases of a reported miracle-worker, are those in a source much later, like 200 years later, than the miracle event reportedly happened. E.g., Hanina ben Dosa is said to have done miracles, but there is no such report of him doing this until 300 years later, if it did happen. Also, the case of Honi the Circle-Drawer is mentioned only 150 years later, in one source only, saying this character once caused it to rain. Only one source 150 years later is obviously not a serious case of a credible source for such claims. And even for these examples where there is such a belief in a wonder-worker, there are only 3 or 4 examples. In the Latin-Greek writings we see the appearance of miracles attributed to ancient heroes, like Aeneas and Romulus, but no examples of any recent reported miracle-workers. Here and there we routinely encounter more stories about the ANCIENT HEROES or gods etc. That's not what the Jesus miracle-worker is. He is reported in multiple sources near to his actual time in history, which is real evidence. Whereas legends of a 500- or 1000-year old tradition from far back in history is not evidence for the real events.

Is it true that "Conditions may have been ripe" for miracles, at the time of Jesus? If so, there'd be other reported cases. But there are no others. There's nothing even close. The lack of miracle events or miracle-workers during this time, about 300 (200) AD to about 100 AD, is really unusual. This period of all times is the MOST EMPTY of such claims in the literature. As we go farther back, before 300 BC, and also forward, later than 100 AD, we encounter far more claims or beliefs or superstitions of someone doing miracles.

So it's not true that "Conditions may have been ripe" for miracles, at the time of Jesus. The opposite is the case -- if we follow the facts, or the evidence of history, rather than our prejudice which insists that the Jesus miracle acts could not have happened, regardless what the facts show.

(In modern times, hypnotists sometimes astound with their cures.)

We must take into consideration anything which might be similar. There are probably cases of hypnotism which produce benefits. If so it obviously does not refute the Jesus miracle acts reported in the ancient evidence. If there are any cases of something similar which explains what happened in the case of Jesus in about 30 AD, those should be presented, showing the evidence for it, telling us what happened and what it proves, or what light it sheds on the Jesus case in 30 AD. Nothing about it seems to in any way cast doubt on the reported Jesus miracles of the 1st century.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The rise of the Jesus myth is not unique.

The new religion is popular because it's so easy. It's not like the older religions.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why no alternative "Messiahs"?
to compete with Jesus?

He alone had an aggressive following? or followings (plural)?
no others? none? zilch? nada?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Lumpen asks why there weren't many different messiahs with small followings, rather than a single "messiah" whose popularity escalated dramatically. I think natural clustering explains this. ("I think Jared is a nifty messiah, but my brother likes George. Too many to choose from! You still going with Rudy?" "Nahh. Everybody in the next village is going with some guy named Jesus. I'm going to their next meeting to see what all the fuss is about.")

Nothing like this story-telling has any resemblance to what was happening in the 1st century, before and after Jesus. In the writings there is absolutely nothing to show different messiah-seekers trying to choose which "messiah" as the one to follow. You can make up your own stories about what happened, but if you care about history you have to make use of something to be found in the writings from the time, not just concoct little stories of your own totally detached from anything in the writings of the time. The facts determine what the truth is, and the facts come from the evidence, or the writings of that time, without which there is no historical record. The "historical Jesus" topic makes no sense if you completely cut it off from the 1st-century evidence and instead substitute your personal imagination and talent to concoct your subjective scenarios, like a couple kids playing cops 'n robbers.

In the letters of Paul (but in other writings too) we see a clear indication of some "what all the fuss is about" drama going on, but -- BUT -- it has nothing to do with who is the correct "messiah" to choose. There's never anyone named as another candidate for this role, never any "fuss" about which one to choose. Paul speaks of some other apostles who were competing with him, but not other "messiah" candidates, and he even denounces some of those Jesus apostles as false prophets of one kind or another.

At the Jerusalem Council around 48 AD they argue over some issues, and there's animosity, but never is there any issue about who to follow as the real "messiah" vs. another. Rather, there is contention as to what teachings to believe, or what rituals to practice, and especially whether Gentiles should have to do the rituals, also who is more correctly telling the "Gospel" of Jesus. But there is 100% agreement on who the "messiah" is -- never the slightest disagreement on this. There was no popularity contest going, no alternative names floating around about who the real "messiah" should be or which "messiah" to follow.

So can we get serious? start with the facts and work from there? Why was this one person alone, the Jesus of Galilee, the only Messiah being promoted by anyone, the only one being written about? Why was there actually LOTS OF CONTROVERSY and yet no disagreement about who "the Messiah" was? And why was this one chosen for the "messiah" role when he was clearly less recognized, less popular, and of lower status than hundreds of others who could just as easily have been chosen?

The rapidity with which Christianity spread was phenomenal. It was a strong and growing movement even before Paul's conversion. Why?

This contradicts others posting here who say there was no spread of the movement until Paul, who actually became the true Founder of Christianity, spreading it as its foremost promoter.

It's not clear that the early spread of Christianity was "phenomenal" in the 1st century. Bart Ehrman says it was slow (and gradual) until the 3rd century. What's very clear is that the earliest Christians or Christ believers were not choosing to believe based on any personal contact with Jesus, like being affected by his charisma. 99% of the belief was being spread by people far removed from him, who did not marvel at his personality, who never experienced him directly, never saw him or heard him speak, etc. They believed only because of claims they heard others making about him. Or, in some cases, claims they read about him. This was what influenced them. So, if you want to answer why the movement spread (either suddenly or gradually), you have to ask what those early converts were hearing about Jesus. What were they being told? or what were they reading about him? It's something they learned about him decades later which convinced them that he was special. Doesn't there have to be something they thought was special about him? What was it?

The promise of everlasting life appealed, . . .

Yes, but why should they think Jesus in particular was any expert on this? Why not any of several prominent prophets and rabbis and apocalyptic preachers and priests who had more recognition than Jesus had? Afterlife, or immortality, or eternal life, etc., was a theme adopted by the Pharisees, and others, going back at least to the Maccabean period. What did Jesus add to this that was new?

hint: it begins with the letter "R" (as in "Resurrection")

. . . as did the Resurrection myth (with sightings possibly due to mass hypnosis).

But why only a resurrected Jesus? Why not a resurrected John the Baptist? or other resurrected prophet or priest or rabbi or apocalyptic rabble-rouser? Weren't there many others who could just as easily have been mythologized into a resurrected hero? Why no "mass hypnosis" in the case of others who attracted disciples? even more disciples than Jesus attracted? others more militant? more charismatic? Why did all the various "messiah" seekers converge on this one person only, among hundreds of possible candidates, and none of them chose anyone different, even though there were literally thousands of different "messiah" factions and cults all going their own separate ways?

Why is it that the explanations everyone offers never tell us anything distinct about Jesus? You're supposed to be explaining where the new belief in Jesus came from, or what caused it, and yet you can't identify anything singular about him connecting him to this belief which started spreading. You can't explain why "mass hypnosis" happened only in his case and not in any other case. Why should there be this "mass hypnosis" caused by him and not anyone else? Who hypnotized these people? 10 and 20 and 30 years later? people who never saw Jesus directly?


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[James Brown]

 List_of_Jewish_messiah_claimants

 List_of_messiah_claimants

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is Jesus noted in the 1st-century written record?
What did he do that was important?

But especially important was the technique of "accepting Jesus into one's heart", i.e. personal conversion. Is there a special name for this technique? Is it unique to Christianity?

Nothing here explains what makes Jesus unique in history. The sense of a close relationship to the hero legend, or deity, was common among the pagan deities. Worshipers of Isis or Mithras or the Greek gods all expressed their strong feeling of closeness and personal attachment to their hero/deity. Also in the Eastern beliefs there was the attachment to this or that particular Hindu Avatar, or to this or that "enlightened" Bodhisattva of Buddhism, etc. There are literally millions of examples of such personal emotional attachment between the follower/disciple and the one worshiped.

Even political heroes, kings, military conquerors, etc. become adored by their followers, whether during their lives or centuries later after they're long gone and are memorialized as national heroes.

Even the worshipers of Hitler felt such emotional attachment to their fuehrer. Joseph Goebbels and other promoters urged the followers to seek him "with your hearts and not with your minds."

In all such cases of a hero/deity we can identify what he did of significance in life which distinguished him in history and brought him such status of having devoted admirers. Even if we go all the way back to Osiris we can identify what made him noteworthy, though obviously the history is obscured. But he must have been a very early King (or ruler) of some kind who led Egyptian armies to conquer neighboring lands, or this is in the legends about him. He must have been politically powerful, probably the most powerful Egyptian of the time, and he was made into a god, just like Caesar Augustus was 3000+ years later. Also we know what Alexander the Great did to become worshiped by devoted disciples for centuries later. And so on with all the other great heroes.

We know what made Confucius unique, and Gautama, and Mohammed, and Zoroaster. Despite the legend or myth which accumulated over time, there is the historical element we can identify which puts them into a unique place historically and explains how their legend began, with some real facts of history.

So, what are the facts of history which explain how Jesus became unique in history, who also became a hero with devoted followers? This is what no one can give an answer to. (Except those who acknowledge that he did the miracle acts, which is all we have in the record which gives the explanation.)

I think such personal conversions involved forms of hypnosis or self-hypnosis and could themselves seem almost miraculous.

This is also true of the other famous heroes (or most of them) who have devoted followers. Nothing about this explains how Jesus is noteworthy. You could say Jesus was a preacher unique to the particular time of 30 AD or so, but this doesn't distinguish him from many others who also were popular preachers at that time. John the Baptizer is distinguished as one who attracted large crowds to the Jordan River to be baptized by him. And James the Just is distinguished as being the recognized leader of the Jerusalem Church during the 40s and 50s. So, what distinguishes Jesus?

Jesus seems to have been a very gracious and charitable man, a charismatic healer, and perhaps a clever preacher.

There have been thousands of other preachers/prophets who were gracious and charitable and clever and charismatic. Perhaps this alone was enough for a few of them to become recognized in history, but only if they had a long career of preaching and inspiring their listeners, unlike Jesus, whose public career was only 1-3 years.

In the case of healing miracles, Jesus is the only one for whom we have any written record documenting his healing acts. (If you claim there are others, it is meaningless unless you dig out one example of this (a miracle healer) and present us with the particular miracle claims from the written record about him. Just reciting a meaningless laundry-list of such legends of supposed miracle-workers is pointless -- you have to cite the particular evidence, not just recite your laundry-list you copied from your favorite Jesus-debunker guru.) For the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker we have 4 1st-century sources which attest to his miracle acts, including his Resurrection. This distinguishes him in history and explains why he has been made known to us so we know he existed, or why there was any written record left behind to tell us about him.

But his popularity soared after his death when he was no longer healing or preaching. He had trained the Twelve so they could duplicate some of Jesus' success.

The Book of Acts is the only source narrating any miracle acts by the disciples. We need more than only one source. These alleged miracles can easily be explained as fictional accounts due to mythologizing. Once Jesus was recognized as a miracle-worker, it became very easy for additional miracle stories to emerge as a result of mythologizing. With Jesus gone, there was a yearning for more of the same, and it became easy for the stories to emerge soon, without requiring the usual centuries of mythologizing.

So the evidence is only that Jesus did the miracle acts, not that the disciples had any such power. The tales of them doing the same are easily explained as due to mythologizing.

Is Paul perhaps given too much credit? The techniques of men like Simon Peter led to Christianity's early success.

There's no reason to believe that. Of course the Book of Acts depicts him as someone important, but there's no reason to believe he had any special talent or techniques. His reported miracle healings are likely fiction..

Jesus had followers who promoted him later, but none of these singularly can explain how Jesus became noteworthy in the historical record. There were others also, in addition to Paul -- other apostles or missionaries -- and they would have spread the "Gospel" as well even if Paul and Peter had not existed. The spread of this movement was very gradual, lasting long beyond the time of Peter and Paul. It's probably not true that there was an explosion of Christian converts in this period, 40-70 AD. More likely it was slower and gradual into the 2nd and 3rd centuries.


Was Jesus "unique"?

Everyone in history is unique, every critter, every object of any kind, every speck of dust. What is significant about this question?

What special unique historical conditions
made the reported Jesus miracle-worker necessary?
to the exclusion of any others, before and after?

He's absolutely correct that the worship of Jesus was a very unusual and unique event. But this did not come about because Jesus was a supernatural messiah who worked real miracles. Instead he was just a charismatic and talented man who was in the right place at the right time.

This could be said of millions of others also, who were charismatic and talented and were in the right place at the right time.

Here's the point: There have been hundreds/thousands of humans who were "very unusual and unique" in history, not just Jesus. But in ALL these cases we can name what made them special. This is about famous persons, who stand out in the historical record, in the writings, as being noteworthy. The point is that they are noteworthy FOR A REASON, i.e., because of facts which distinguish them in some way based on what they did. They had to have done something we can name, even if there's much legend mixed in with the fact, as there is fiction mixed in with the facts about all noteworthy persons. Despite the doubtful elements, there is enough fact in the written accounts for us to identify what they actually did which made them noteworthy in history.

Not guesswork, but facts. We know Gautama was a real preacher who taught thousands of disciples during his lifetime, during his long career of teaching for at least 40 years, sometime around 500 BC, and he became a widespread celebrity because of his impact on those thousands of disciples. We don't know anything like that about Jesus. Though it's likely he did some teaching, it was probably for a period of 1-3 years only, which cannot explain why he is noteworthy in history.

Likewise we know facts about all the other noteworthy persons in history, and these facts tell us what was special about each one and why he became famous, why he was reported to us in the writings. Yet no one can give an explanation what made Jesus noteworthy, even though there has to be something in the facts, or in the written record, which answers this.

It's because of this that the reported miracle acts, including the Resurrection, are likely to be true, because there has to be something noteworthy about him, told in the written accounts, and this is all there is in the written record which can explain what caused him to be noticed as special so that writers took the trouble to give us these written accounts. This is the best explanation if no one can offer anything else. So far no one is noting anything special about Jesus, from any evidence, which gives the explanation. It has to be something that he did which others did not do, just as Gautama did things that others did not do in about 500 BC, and Socrates in Athens did things about 100 years later that others did not do. In the case of Zoroaster it's more difficult to identify what he did, because we can't determine an approximate date. But still he's unique as the only prophet or preacher who reputedly started a new Religion in Persia, thus having a strong impact on all Persians from that time forward.

So, it's astonishing that Jesus is noted as important in the historical record of the 1st century and yet did nothing to distinguish himself in any way that can be named (if he did not do the miracle acts). Because there's no other explanation why he's noteworthy, it's reasonable to just believe the written accounts of the time which report the miracle acts, since there's no other explanation anyone can offer explaining what happened to make him noteworthy in the written record of the time.

 

[TomC]

Why is Jesus noted in the 1st-century written record?
What did he do that was important?

Nothing. That's why He wasn't mentioned anywhere by contemporaries, only years later by religious cultists. Generally far away, who'd never met Him. So little notice that many people legitimately question the whether He actually had an historical existence at all.

Your long walls of text are designed to obscure that simple fact. You believe that a miracle working demigod roamed Judea for years attracting no notice. You believe that Jesus performed miracles with hundreds or thousands of witnesses, then was publicly executed, then Rose from the Dead. But nobody mentioned that for years afterwards in any surviving record!
I cannot believe that. It isn't a choice on my part, I am unable to believe that. Especially because there are multiple plausible explanations for what records do survive.
Tom