Historical Jesus

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is all our known history just ALLEGORY?

There's a simple reason the Barabbas scene cannot be an allegory: If the writer-creator's intent here was to paint an allegory, he would have done a much better job of it.

That's one of the weakest "reasons" in history.

It stands up if, and only if, there is no such thing as bad writing.

The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. I present for your consideration Jeffery Archer, just as a single datum from the veritable tsunami of options to disprove your conjecture.

You're in the wrong message board. The topic here is the Historical Jesus -- about an ancient history event, not about modern Anglo and American pop culture, or about your knee-jerk judgmentalism against some writer whose style makes you vomit.

In conclusion, there is no reason whatsoever that the Barabbas scene cannot be an allegory. . , . "Proof by reference to the impossibility of bad writing" is an absolute doozy.

You're right -- it's possible that William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is only allegory, or that the events reported on the Nightly News are only allegory. You're right that the history or news reported to us might NOT have happened literally and that "there is no reason whatsoever" that the moon landing or other events "cannot be allegory." All our reported history and events may be only allegory, as you're suggesting, and those writers and reporters are just guilty of "bad writing" when their work appears as literal reporting rather than the creative allegory you've proved that it really is. You're right that this is not absolutely impossible.

BUT, when I said the Barabbas scene "cannot be allegory" I didn't mean there's not one chance in 100 trillion that it's allegory -- maybe the odds are 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000. What I meant is that it's very improbable that it's allegory, because the two scenarios --- the scapegoat ritual and the Barabbas scene -- are radically dissimilar, and so not analogous to each other.

Do you understand what an allegory is, or metaphor, or literary symbol? There's a comparison: the elements of a story plot compared to the elements of the symbol that story is supposed to express by analogy. There has to be a common feature in both of them which is the same, even though the two items -- the story and the symbol it represents -- are separate, not identical. But they must have an identical common element -- in this case 2 characters (the goats) which are both innocent. If there's no such common element, then it's not an allegory, or metaphor, or parallel -- and there's no analogy of the story to the symbol to be expressed allegorically. If you claim it's an allegory, then you have to show the element common to the 2 scenarios.

Just that there are two objects in each scene does not make the 2 analogous. E.g., a story about 2 birds flying overhead is not an allegory for 2 runs being scored in a baseball game a mile away. There has to be more in the scenario than simply 2 objects doing something. Just a number which appears in both scenarios does not make the two scenarios analogous and therefore one of them a symbol for the other.


the Barabbas scene

Again, the Barabbas scene is about 2 prisoners who are very different from each other: One is totally innocent of any wrong, while the other is clearly guilty of a serious crime. And the innocent one is condemned to death while the guilty one is set free. This has nothing to do with the scapegoat scene in which 2 innocent goats are put through a ritual. They're both innocent, and so they cannot be represented by this "trial" scene where the innocent one is condemned and the guilty one set free.

If the Mark author needed a scenario to symbolize the scapegoat ritual, he needed to create a scene in which 2 innocent ones are made the objects, which the author could have done. He could have put an innocent person rather than Barabbas into the scene, to represent one of the innocent goats, and then have Jesus represent the other innocent goat. BOTH the characters have to be innocent in order for the scene to be an allegory for the scapegoat scenario. This is obvious, and it would have been obvious to the Mark author, who, even if he was a bad writer, understood allegory and could easily have provided such a scenario for his allegory of 2 innocent prisoners representing the 2 innocent goats.

You're right that this fundamental flaw does not mean there isn't one chance in 50 trillion that it was intended as an allegory. Maybe it was, but it's highly unlikely. There was no reason for the author to make one character a violent criminal compared to the other who is innocent. So therefore the chance is extremely small, maybe 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, that the scene is intended not literally but as a symbol for the scapegoat scene involving 2 innocent goats.

It's obvious that the author made one character innocent and one guilty not because he needed an allegory, but because there's a real case he's reporting in which one prisoner is innocent and the other is guilty, and there's an injustice of condemning the innocent one rather than the guilty one. This is what is significant in the scene, and so if it's to serve as a symbol for some other scene somewhere, that scene also must be about a similar injustice happening, especially something ironical where the outcome inflicts a double injustice like freeing the guilty one while condemning the innocent one.

So the Mark author was constrained by something to make the story be about one innocent prisoner and one guilty prisoner. What constrained him to do this? It must have been the reality of the event he is describing, in which one is guilty and one innocent -- rather than 2 innocent prisoners, which he would have chosen for the scene if he meant it as an allegory for the scapegoat ritual.

 

[bilby]

As I have mentioned before:

Not only does a position not become less wrong the more words you throw at it; but this kind of insanely long response is exactly why 'TL;DR' is a sensible response - a massive screed is a very strong indication that the writer has nothing useful to contribute.

I'm not going to waste my life reading all this crap.

You remain wrong, no matter how many keystrokes you make. Start making sound arguments, rather than long-winded ones, if you care whether people agree with you.

And if you don't care, don't make any arguments at all.

You have learned nothing in the intervening nine years.

 

[steve_bank]

Part of a cutie is allegories and myths.

I grew up with the George Washington and the cherry tree myth. There is the mythical Lincoln and there was the real Limn-con as he really was.

There were our mythical founders who were for freedom and justice. bu not for Native Americans and black slaves.

George Washington and the Cherry Tree (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

Few figures in American history are surrounded by myth as George Washington: he had wooden teeth, he was so strong he could throw a silver dollar across the Potomac, or that he wore a wig. What is perhaps the most enduring tale is he chopped down a cherry tree when he was a boy and told his dad the truth about it, in turn gaining the moral high ground that we should all aim for. This story is not so easily disproved.

An allegory is a story, poem, or picture that uses symbols to convey a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. Allegories can be found in many different art forms, including literature, film, and video.

the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence
a writer known for his use of allegory

Biblical allegory:

Job
The Exodus and wandering in the desert.
Noah, the Ark, and the flood.

The gospel Jesus allegory of suffering, moral trials, death and resurrection into a new life. Spiritual rebirth were all sins are washed away.

The idea that the bible both OT and NT represent an accrete historical record is well beyond ridiculous. The possibility of the gospel Jesus resembling real peron is slim at best.

 

[steve_bank]

One of the greatest American myths was JFK.

Political operatives crafted the image of JFK, Jackie, and kids as the squeaky clean white American family to be emulated. In reality JFK had a stream of of women in the WH. Jackie knew but went along with the facade. Reporters knew but did not report it.

Lincolns public image as the rough and ready backwoods man was crafted by political operatives.


The question on the gospel Jesus is what were the interests served by the tale? The usual financial, political, and power interests?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is all our known history just ALLEGORY?

There's a simple reason the Barabbas scene cannot be an allegory: If the writer-creator's intent here was to paint an allegory, he would have done a much better job of it.

That's one of the weakest "reasons" in history.

It stands up if, and only if, there is no such thing as bad writing.

The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. I present for your consideration Jeffery Archer, just as a single datum from the veritable tsunami of options to disprove your conjecture.

You're in the wrong message board. The topic here is the Historical Jesus -- about an ancient history event, not about modern Anglo and American pop culture, or about your knee-jerk judgmentalism against some writer whose style makes you vomit.

In conclusion, there is no reason whatsoever that the Barabbas scene cannot be an allegory. . , . "Proof by reference to the impossibility of bad writing" is an absolute doozy.

You're right -- it's possible that William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is only allegory, or that the events reported on the Nightly News are only allegory. You're right that the history or news reported to us might NOT have happened literally and that "there is no reason whatsoever" that the moon landing or other events "cannot be allegory." All our reported history and events may be only allegory, as you're suggesting, and those writers and reporters are just guilty of "bad writing" when their work appears as literal reporting rather than the creative allegory you've proved that it really is. You're right that this is not absolutely impossible.

BUT, when I said the Barabbas scene "cannot be allegory" I didn't mean there's not one chance in 100 trillion that it's allegory -- maybe the odds are 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000. What I meant is that it's very improbable that it's allegory, because the two scenarios --- the scapegoat ritual and the Barabbas scene -- are radically dissimilar, and so not analogous to each other.

Do you understand what an allegory is, or metaphor, or literary symbol? There's a comparison: the elements of a story plot compared to the elements of the symbol that story is supposed to express by analogy. There has to be a common feature in both of them which is the same, even though the two items -- the story and the symbol it represents -- are separate, not identical. But they must have an identical common element -- in this case 2 characters (the goats) which are both innocent. If there's no such common element, then it's not an allegory, or metaphor, or parallel -- and there's no analogy of the story to the symbol to be expressed allegorically. If you claim it's an allegory, then you have to show the element common to the 2 scenarios.

Just that there are two objects in each scene does not make the 2 analogous. E.g., a story about 2 birds flying overhead is not an allegory for 2 runs being scored in a baseball game a mile away. There has to be more in the scenario than simply 2 objects doing something. Just a number which appears in both scenarios does not make the two scenarios analogous and therefore one of them a symbol for the other.


the Barabbas scene

Again, the Barabbas scene is about 2 prisoners who are very different from each other: One is totally innocent of any wrong, while the other is clearly guilty of a serious crime. And the innocent one is condemned to death while the guilty one is set free. This has nothing to do with the scapegoat scene in which 2 innocent goats are put through a ritual. They're both innocent, and so they cannot be represented by this "trial" scene where the innocent one is condemned and the guilty one set free.

If the Mark author needed a scenario to symbolize the scapegoat ritual, he needed to create a scene in which 2 innocent ones are made the objects, which the author could have done. He could have put an innocent person rather than Barabbas into the scene, to represent one of the innocent goats, and then have Jesus represent the other innocent goat. BOTH the characters have to be innocent in order for the scene to be an allegory for the scapegoat scenario. This is obvious, and it would have been obvious to the Mark author, who, even if he was a bad writer, understood allegory and could easily have provided such a scenario for his allegory of 2 innocent prisoners representing the 2 innocent goats.

You're right that this fundamental flaw does not mean there isn't one chance in 50 trillion that it was intended as an allegory. Maybe it was, but it's highly unlikely. There was no reason for the author to make one character a violent criminal compared to the other who is innocent. So therefore the chance is extremely small, maybe 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, that the scene is intended not literally but as a symbol for the scapegoat scene involving 2 innocent goats.

It's obvious that the author made one character innocent and one guilty not because he needed an allegory, but because there's a real case he's reporting in which one prisoner is innocent and the other is guilty, and there's an injustice of condemning the innocent one rather than the guilty one. This is what is significant in the scene, and so if it's to serve as a symbol for some other scene somewhere, that scene also must be about a similar injustice happening, especially something ironical where the outcome inflicts a double injustice like freeing the guilty one while condemning the innocent one.

So the Mark author was constrained by something to make the story be about one innocent prisoner and one guilty prisoner. What constrained him to do this? It must have been the reality of the event he is describing, in which one is guilty and one innocent -- rather than 2 innocent prisoners, which he would have chosen for the scene if he meant it as an allegory for the scapegoat ritual.

As I have mentioned before:

Not only does a position not become less wrong the more words you throw at it; but this kind of insanely long response is exactly why 'TL;DR' is a sensible response - a massive screed is a very strong indication that the writer has nothing useful to contribute.

I'm not going to waste my life reading all this crap.

You remain wrong, no matter how many keystrokes you make. Start making sound arguments, rather than long-winded ones, if you care whether people agree with you.

And if you don't care, don't make any arguments at all.

You have learned nothing in the intervening nine years.

Why do you insist that your excellent post of Jan. 8 is a superficial piece of childish crap not worthy of an adequate response from me? On the contrary, I give you credit for posing a legitimate point to which I am obligated out of respect for you to give a careful and complete response.

--- also out of respect for our topic, the Historical Jesus, which at least a billion humans in the world today care about, having strong beliefs about it, and in particular about the "trial" of Jesus scene and the appearance of the Barabbas character. It does matter what really happened, and why it happened. (For clarity, let's note that the appearance of Jesus before Pilate was probably not a formal or official "trial" of him for a crime, like the trial of Socrates, but was an unofficial proceeding which need not have followed the official procedures for criminal defendants, and also may have been done very quickly, in less than five minutes, for convenience.)

And let's hear it for Bilby, to whom we owe a debt of thanks for his further comment, which now gives me occasion to elaborate further on why the Barabbas scene cannot be allegory (or is unlikely to be allegory), and so offer you still more keystrokes to my previous WALL OF TEXT.


Did the Barabbas incident really happen?

The vast majority of historians say this general event did really happen in history -- i.e., Jesus being condemned by the Roman governor. But they puzzle over the Barabbas incident, doubting whether this part might have been erroneously or artificially inserted into what describes overall a real procedure where the accusations were made and the death penalty imposed. Some of them write or publish or lecture extensively on this part of the story, seeking to explain its inclusion in the four written accounts. Bart Ehrman, e.g., elaborates on it at length and suggests that Barabbas might be fictional.

To say there was no such real character as Barabbas, and dismiss this as allegory only, requires that the evidence be discounted -- i.e., the written accounts from the historical period, which are 99% of our evidence for the common ancient history events all of us claim to know. And so this requires us to first back up and consider any reasonable explanation how this incident might really fit into the context after all, to allow a reasonable explanation who Barabbas was, or might have been -- what part he possibly played in the events -- i.e., how some kind of exchange could come about leading to his release in exchange for Jesus. There are reasonable explanations how something like this might have happened (as I noted earlier -- Jan. 5 #1,719), so it cannot be ruled out. And therefore it's not unreasonable to believe the story as presented, rather than reject all 4 accounts, which are consistent in presenting the incident and don't contradict each other, as they do elsewhere in some places. Nothing about the Gospel accounts requires rejecting them totally as 100% fabrication, even if some fabrication elsewhere in the accounts is acknowledged. It's normal for ancient history events, or the accounts of them, to contain discrepancies and so difficulties in separating fact from fiction.

Just because these sources are not strictly historical accounts does not change the fact that they contain history. Much of our known history comes from non-historical sources.


Still more FLAWS in the scapegoat allegory

There's an additional reason why the scapegoat analogy, or allegory, contradicts the evidence: The Barabbas story includes the element of the crowd present being offered a choice of having either Barabbas or Jesus released. How does that fit with the scapegoat scenario, where both goats are innocent, and one is released to the wilderness and the other is slaughtered? In this scapegoat scenario, where is there a choice offered to the assembly of worshipers (the "crowd"), for them to choose between the two goats? by applause or crying out their cheer as each goat is presented for their vote --- like the old "Queen for a Day" program where the audience chose the winner? That's similar to Pilate appealing to the crowd, which chose Barabbas to be released and Jesus to be condemned. How does that fit the scapegoat scene? If there is no such choice offered to the worshipers in the scapegoat scene, then why did the Mark author include that element in his scene of the crowd clamoring for Jesus to be condemned?

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat , a priest casts lots over the 2 goats, so the choice between the 2 is left to random chance. So, if the Mark author's intent was to give us a scapegoat allegory, he would have them draw lots over the two prisoners, so that the choice of Jesus to be condemned would be determined by random chance. This is one further discrepancy between the Barabbas scene and the scapegoat ritual, and still further reason to reject the theory that the story is a scapegoat allegory.

Furthermore, there is a JUDGMENTAL element in the Barabbas scene which is absent from the scapegoat scene. The Mark author is obviously making a judgment that a wrong choice was made, by condemning Jesus to death and releasing Barabbas who was guilty. And there is clear intent to condemn this choice, even to make Pilate look like a hero for resisting the crowd who clamors for condemnation of Jesus and release of Barabbas. The crowd and the priests are depicted as guilty for this injustice. Where is there any such judgmentalism in the scapegoat scenario? where is someone perpetrating an injustice by making a wrong choice between the two goats?

Note especially that Matthew and Luke both elaborate on this point, even exaggerating it, beyond Mark's version. So they too are disregarding any scapegoat allegory here by emphasizing the judgmental element of condemning the crowd and the priests for their bad choice, and even praising Pilate for resisting them and trying to make the right choice. So everyone who understands anything here seems to be oblivious to any scapegoat scene where there is no such judgmentalism to which the Barabbas scene could be an allegory.

A further discrepancy is the fate of Barabbas. What happens to him? Is he sent out into the wilderness to bear the sins of someone? No, he just goes free, unlike the scapegoat scenario which has the scapegoat cast out into the wilderness,

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat , the scapegoat is "sent away into the wilderness and pushed down a steep ravine where it died." That obviously is not what happened to Barabbas. If this scene was supposed to be an allegory to the scapegoat scene, then the author would have had Barabbas taken out somewhere to be cast over a cliff. So again we see the author is constrained to present a story which contradicts the scapegoat scenario and instead conform to a REAL event he is presenting to us, which is obviously the actual scene of the historical Pilate condemning the historical Jesus to be crucified. And this scene of an injustice taking place includes a Barabbas character who was guilty of crime but was released, for some reason, whereas Jesus was condemned instead, even though he was innocent. So here again the scapegoat scene is not analogous and contradicts the Barabbas scene, which therefore cannot be intended as a scapegoat allegory.

When the evidence contradicts your allegory theory again and again, it's more reasonable to choose the story in the text as a report of what literally happened, rather than keep trying to push your artificial allegory theory into a place where it does not fit.

This does not mean every detail in the text must be accurate. Obviously there are discrepancies here and there between the accounts, as is common among the ancient writings from which we derive our ancient history. Where a discrepancy is obvious, we can reasonably question that part of the written account, while believing other details reported consistently, without contradiction, in the different accounts telling the same event. That multiple sources report the same event, or the same detail in the event -- like the Barabbas incident, is good evidence and increases the credibility of it as being a literal report of what happened, and not allegory.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The following is transferred from "the Jewish Concept of a Messiah" topic, where the most frequent question discussed is whether Jesus qualified to be "the Messiah" -- which everyone agrees that he did not. Of course the word "Messiah" was early Jewish. But the later Messiah-Conqueror Hero/Savior-to-come symbol seems to have evolved from the 1st century AD, influenced by the early Christians trying to attach the "Messiah" title to Jesus.


Historical sources/evidence for Jesus

the following is from:

Who were the "dying and rising" savior gods?
Where is the evidence that they rose again?

Regardless, we have no contemporary sources for Jesus either.

Just as we have virtually no contemporary sources for ancient history characters generally. There are a tiny few exceptions, where a historian wrote of events contemporary to himself. That's the rare exception. The norm is 50-100-200 years later, from the time of the event(s) to the date of the source which reports it.

None of the gospels are written by eyewitnesses.

Virtually none of the ancient history we know comes to us from eyewitness accounts. Very tiny few exceptions to this. The writers you rely on for the ancient history you know were 99% non eyewitnesses, never having seen the events they report to you and yet which you believe without question. Virtually all the historians rely on oral reports, popular rumors, hearsay. A few find reliable sources, but mostly from ancient records, generations before their time. Which also the Gospel writers did. The evidence of Jesus healing the sick is very similar to the evidence we have for much of our ancient history knowledge.

Actually we have many firsthand accounts.

"many"? There are "many many many" ancient documents, only a few of which (a tiny few, TINY PERCENTAGE) are from writers contemporary to the events they reported. Percentagewise virtually all the history you know is from writers who were NOT contemporary to the events they report, but who reported events 50-100-200 years earlier than their time. Of course the total number of rare exceptions to this might add up to "many," but they are not typically where you derive your knowledge of ancient history. You do NOT dismiss writings dated 50-100 years later than the reported events (without tossing most ancient history out the window). The Gospel writings fit into this typical normal category of historical sources. They date from about 40-70 years later than the reported events, which is a relatively short time span for our ancient history sources. And for Paul this time span is only about 20 years.

Caesar wrote his own histories.

Yes, he's one of the extremely rare exceptions. Not the norm for our ancient history knowledge.

Regardless, these various histories aren’t claiming miracles for the most part, and to the extent that they do, we discount them.

They are discounted because there's seldom/never any evidence for the miracle claims. But it's reasonable to take a critical approach and consider the evidence, and since there's typically only one source, written centuries later than the reported events, they are discounted as having any credibility. But by contrast, the miracles of Jesus are attested to in at least 4 (5) 1st-century sources near the time he lived rather than centuries later.

It's true that for historians the miracle claims are downplayed or discounted. Or, more correctly, they are placed into the doubtful category. Will Durant, in his "Caesar and Christ" volume, does not discount the miracle stories of Jesus, but rather leaves open the possibility of something unusual having happened. In general, historians cannot simply pronounce that such things did or did not happen, but have to set them aside, into a different category, such as improbable, and about which we don't know enough to judge one way or the other. Of course a few dogmatically dismiss any such claims uncritically, as other historians automatically believe the accounts because they are Christian.

There's nothing about science or historiography that requires all miracle claims to be rejected as fiction. Rather, it's required to subject such claims to extra skepticism or scrutiny before considering them as possibly credible.

Lumpenproletariat said:
(However, the Apostle Paul actually was contemporary to Jesus, though not being a direct witness. He likely knew something close to the actual events, being in direct contact with the direct disciples.)

The time lapse between Jesus and the later written accounts is 20-70 years. The Apostle Paul is the earliest source, reporting the Resurrection only about 20 years after it happened. While 40-70 years for the Gospel writers is still a relatively short time span between the event(s) and the later written accounts. And these are 4 sources (or 5 for the Resurrection) all reported in a relatively short time from when the miracle event(s) happened. These 4 (5) sources are unusual for ancient history events, which are mostly reported in only one source (or maybe 2).

But so what? Even 20 years is significant and . . .

It's more significant how SHORT this time span is. The number of reported ancient history events which we know from a source this close to the event reported is extremely small PERCENTAGEWISE. If you accept all those other sources, the mainline historians, even though they report what happened 100 years ago, you cannot condemn the Gospels as non-history only because there's a time gap of 40-70 years later, and Paul who is only 20-25 years later. It's not any long time gap between the writings and the earlier reported events which makes the accounts less reliable.

Paul was not an eyewitness.

Virtually none of our ancient history writings are from eyewitnesses. Even Caesar and other contemporaries reported mostly events they did not witness directly, not seeing it with their own eyes.

Second, Mark’s original ending doesn’t have any resurrection story in it.

Yes it does:

Mark 16: 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
6 But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."

It doesn't narrate any resurrection appearances, but it anticipates these, as the women are told where they should go to see him again.

Jesus doesn’t reappear until someone added the final 8 verses a long time later.

So, the original Mark tells what he knew, without inventing anything else. And the other sources tell us more. Still, Mark does imply that there were to be the appearances. Maybe he never knew enough about them to give narrative accounts of them.

This Gospel and the others were not likely written by contemporaries, e.g. the disciples. The later Gospel writers knew something of the appearances, also the body missing from the grave, but they (or their sources) got the details confused. Mark chose not to include details in a narration, but just gives us what he knew. Other Gospel writers did more speculation, or maybe had some oral reports that Mark did not have. It's a mistake for believers to insist that each Gospel account has to be totally accurate in the details. The writers could have "filled in details" where these were lacking. This doesn't change the general story they all knew, that Jesus did rise back to life and was seen later.

Since Luke and Matthew use Mark as their source, you really only have one source for all three.

No, these are 3 separate sources, with 2 of them quoting the third.

It's a double standard to judge these as all one source -- you don't apply that strict negative standard onto all the ancient writings. A writer can quote from a source without that making him unreliable or eliminating him as also another source different from the one he quotes.

Both Mt and Lk contain accounts not in Mark. Both of them obviously relied on many sources, not just Mark.

Plus that moves things out like 40 years or more. Again it doesn’t matter whether it’s 20 years or 20,000. It’s still myth.

Spoken like a true dogmatist, like the true believer can judge, "It doesn't matter, it's still the Word of God and has to be true."

You can't use your subjective instinct that "it's still myth" as evidence that it can't be true. We need to question these instincts and instead look at the evidence. The facts should override our impulses.

Lumpenproletariat said:

They’re written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. They tell different stories. Paul never quotes Jesus in any of his letters, an odd omission since it would have helped him at various points.

This is evidence that maybe Jesus was not the religious teacher we have been told he was. Maybe the "teachings of Jesus" are mainly words put into his mouth by later writers. If he did not preach all that stuff, then maybe it's reasonable that Paul would not quote from him. Much of the teachings really came later, though some also came from earlier apocalyptic preachers (earlier than the Gospels or even Paul), i.e., Jewish preachers who put their words into the mouth of Jesus just as later Christian writers put their Christian teachings into his mouth.

Well then, the gospels are utter crap, and unreliable. I agree.

No more so than Herodotus and Josephus are utter crap because they contain quotes which are mostly paraphrasings of what the historical character really said. We can critically examine the quotes and make a judgment how accurate the quote likely is. And of course in many cases we cannot know. But even then the written sources we rely on for these historical characters are not crap. In a few cases the later writer actually gives fictional accounts of what they said. So this tends to undermine the account as factually correct, at that point, but still the overall account helps us determine what really happened, and what the real historical characters were doing or thinking or planning to do.

We're usually better informed by these quotes being given to us, even though we know that the writer took such liberties and could have misquoted that historical figure. Plato might have put words/ideas into the mouth of Socrates, and yet overall we know Socrates better because of Plato giving us his version of him, using the quotes.

Lumpenproletariat said:

All in all, a divine being would have left a better record.

No, maybe a better record would be one with LESS religious teaching, pontificating, huffing-and-puffing Hell-fire condemning fanaticism, and more of the healing miracles, which is probably what Jesus was really about.

Of course we don’t have eyewitness evidence for any of these things. They’re all myths.

No, they're reported events for which we can scrutinize the evidence. For
virtually all ancient history we do not have eyewitness evidence, but we still have evidence for ancient history events. The events did happen and the writings we do have are sufficient to give us much evidence for them, and we can usually separate the fact from the myth. That we don't have 100% Absolute Certainty does not make it all "myth."

Who cares? There’s no eyewitness for Jesus’s miracles.

There were eyewitnesses, just no later eyewitness accounts of it, the same as for most or all ancient history events.

And Frum also rose from the dead.

No he did not -- there is no account or evidence claiming this. Tossing in falsehoods like this only proves the point further: The case of Jesus in 30 AD is by far the most documented example of anyone having been killed and then resurrecting back to life 2 or 3 or 4 days later. There are no other comparable cases you can cite. That you have to make up phony examples like John Frum, out of desperation, only proves the point that there are no other cases.

 

[steve_bank]

Lunoy, how's it going?

I have come to see the gospels as a mix of fiction and conflation of events of multiple people.

Would an appointed Roman l leader make a show of letting people choose who among several would be let go? Probably. Were Jews executed by crucifixion? Probably, it was common for Romans to be brutal to set examples.

There is no way to know how accurate and truthful any of the gospels are.

In the day anyone walking around claiming divinity and working miracles being the son of god would have gotten the attention of the Romans, only Cesar was a living descendant of a god in Rome.


It would be blasphemy to Jews.

 

[SLD]

The following is transferred from "the Jewish Concept of a Messiah" topic, where the most frequent question discussed is whether Jesus qualified to be "the Messiah" -- which everyone agrees that he did not. Of course the word "Messiah" was early Jewish. But the later Messiah-Conqueror Hero/Savior-to-come symbol seems to have evolved from the 1st century AD, influenced by the early Christians trying to attach the "Messiah" title to Jesus.


Historical sources/evidence for Jesus

the following is from:

Who were the "dying and rising" savior gods?
Where is the evidence that they rose again?

Regardless, we have no contemporary sources for Jesus either.

Just as we have virtually no contemporary sources for ancient history characters generally. There are a tiny few exceptions, where a historian wrote of events contemporary to himself. That's the rare exception. The norm is 50-100-200 years later, from the time of the event(s) to the date of the source which reports it.

None of the gospels are written by eyewitnesses.

Virtually none of the ancient history we know comes to us from eyewitness accounts. Very tiny few exceptions to this. The writers you rely on for the ancient history you know were 99% non eyewitnesses, never having seen the events they report to you and yet which you believe without question. Virtually all the historians rely on oral reports, popular rumors, hearsay. A few find reliable sources, but mostly from ancient records, generations before their time. Which also the Gospel writers did. The evidence of Jesus healing the sick is very similar to the evidence we have for much of our ancient history knowledge.

Actually we have many firsthand accounts.

"many"? There are "many many many" ancient documents, only a few of which (a tiny few, TINY PERCENTAGE) are from writers contemporary to the events they reported. Percentagewise virtually all the history you know is from writers who were NOT contemporary to the events they report, but who reported events 50-100-200 years earlier than their time. Of course the total number of rare exceptions to this might add up to "many," but they are not typically where you derive your knowledge of ancient history. You do NOT dismiss writings dated 50-100 years later than the reported events (without tossing most ancient history out the window). The Gospel writings fit into this typical normal category of historical sources. They date from about 40-70 years later than the reported events, which is a relatively short time span for our ancient history sources. And for Paul this time span is only about 20 years.

Caesar wrote his own histories.

Yes, he's one of the extremely rare exceptions. Not the norm for our ancient history knowledge.

Regardless, these various histories aren’t claiming miracles for the most part, and to the extent that they do, we discount them.

They are discounted because there's seldom/never any evidence for the miracle claims. But it's reasonable to take a critical approach and consider the evidence, and since there's typically only one source, written centuries later than the reported events, they are discounted as having any credibility. But by contrast, the miracles of Jesus are attested to in at least 4 (5) 1st-century sources near the time he lived rather than centuries later.

It's true that for historians the miracle claims are downplayed or discounted. Or, more correctly, they are placed into the doubtful category. Will Durant, in his "Caesar and Christ" volume, does not discount the miracle stories of Jesus, but rather leaves open the possibility of something unusual having happened. In general, historians cannot simply pronounce that such things did or did not happen, but have to set them aside, into a different category, such as improbable, and about which we don't know enough to judge one way or the other. Of course a few dogmatically dismiss any such claims uncritically, as other historians automatically believe the accounts because they are Christian.

There's nothing about science or historiography that requires all miracle claims to be rejected as fiction. Rather, it's required to subject such claims to extra skepticism or scrutiny before considering them as possibly credible.

Lumpenproletariat said:
(However, the Apostle Paul actually was contemporary to Jesus, though not being a direct witness. He likely knew something close to the actual events, being in direct contact with the direct disciples.)

The time lapse between Jesus and the later written accounts is 20-70 years. The Apostle Paul is the earliest source, reporting the Resurrection only about 20 years after it happened. While 40-70 years for the Gospel writers is still a relatively short time span between the event(s) and the later written accounts. And these are 4 sources (or 5 for the Resurrection) all reported in a relatively short time from when the miracle event(s) happened. These 4 (5) sources are unusual for ancient history events, which are mostly reported in only one source (or maybe 2).

But so what? Even 20 years is significant and . . .

It's more significant how SHORT this time span is. The number of reported ancient history events which we know from a source this close to the event reported is extremely small PERCENTAGEWISE. If you accept all those other sources, the mainline historians, even though they report what happened 100 years ago, you cannot condemn the Gospels as non-history only because there's a time gap of 40-70 years later, and Paul who is only 20-25 years later. It's not any long time gap between the writings and the earlier reported events which makes the accounts less reliable.

Paul was not an eyewitness.

Virtually none of our ancient history writings are from eyewitnesses. Even Caesar and other contemporaries reported mostly events they did not witness directly, not seeing it with their own eyes.

Second, Mark’s original ending doesn’t have any resurrection story in it.

Yes it does:

Mark 16: 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
6 But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."

It doesn't narrate any resurrection appearances, but it anticipates these, as the women are told where they should go to see him again.

Jesus doesn’t reappear until someone added the final 8 verses a long time later.

So, the original Mark tells what he knew, without inventing anything else. And the other sources tell us more. Still, Mark does imply that there were to be the appearances. Maybe he never knew enough about them to give narrative accounts of them.

This Gospel and the others were not likely written by contemporaries, e.g. the disciples. The later Gospel writers knew something of the appearances, also the body missing from the grave, but they (or their sources) got the details confused. Mark chose not to include details in a narration, but just gives us what he knew. Other Gospel writers did more speculation, or maybe had some oral reports that Mark did not have. It's a mistake for believers to insist that each Gospel account has to be totally accurate in the details. The writers could have "filled in details" where these were lacking. This doesn't change the general story they all knew, that Jesus did rise back to life and was seen later.

Since Luke and Matthew use Mark as their source, you really only have one source for all three.

No, these are 3 separate sources, with 2 of them quoting the third.

It's a double standard to judge these as all one source -- you don't apply that strict negative standard onto all the ancient writings. A writer can quote from a source without that making him unreliable or eliminating him as also another source different from the one he quotes.

Both Mt and Lk contain accounts not in Mark. Both of them obviously relied on many sources, not just Mark.

Plus that moves things out like 40 years or more. Again it doesn’t matter whether it’s 20 years or 20,000. It’s still myth.

Spoken like a true dogmatist, like the true believer can judge, "It doesn't matter, it's still the Word of God and has to be true."

You can't use your subjective instinct that "it's still myth" as evidence that it can't be true. We need to question these instincts and instead look at the evidence. The facts should override our impulses.

Lumpenproletariat said:

They’re written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. They tell different stories. Paul never quotes Jesus in any of his letters, an odd omission since it would have helped him at various points.

This is evidence that maybe Jesus was not the religious teacher we have been told he was. Maybe the "teachings of Jesus" are mainly words put into his mouth by later writers. If he did not preach all that stuff, then maybe it's reasonable that Paul would not quote from him. Much of the teachings really came later, though some also came from earlier apocalyptic preachers (earlier than the Gospels or even Paul), i.e., Jewish preachers who put their words into the mouth of Jesus just as later Christian writers put their Christian teachings into his mouth.

Well then, the gospels are utter crap, and unreliable. I agree.

No more so than Herodotus and Josephus are utter crap because they contain quotes which are mostly paraphrasings of what the historical character really said. We can critically examine the quotes and make a judgment how accurate the quote likely is. And of course in many cases we cannot know. But even then the written sources we rely on for these historical characters are not crap. In a few cases the later writer actually gives fictional accounts of what they said. So this tends to undermine the account as factually correct, at that point, but still the overall account helps us determine what really happened, and what the real historical characters were doing or thinking or planning to do.

We're usually better informed by these quotes being given to us, even though we know that the writer took such liberties and could have misquoted that historical figure. Plato might have put words/ideas into the mouth of Socrates, and yet overall we know Socrates better because of Plato giving us his version of him, using the quotes.

Lumpenproletariat said:

All in all, a divine being would have left a better record.

No, maybe a better record would be one with LESS religious teaching, pontificating, huffing-and-puffing Hell-fire condemning fanaticism, and more of the healing miracles, which is probably what Jesus was really about.

Of course we don’t have eyewitness evidence for any of these things. They’re all myths.

No, they're reported events for which we can scrutinize the evidence. For
virtually all ancient history we do not have eyewitness evidence, but we still have evidence for ancient history events. The events did happen and the writings we do have are sufficient to give us much evidence for them, and we can usually separate the fact from the myth. That we don't have 100% Absolute Certainty does not make it all "myth."

Who cares? There’s no eyewitness for Jesus’s miracles.

There were eyewitnesses, just no later eyewitness accounts of it, the same as for most or all ancient history events.

And Frum also rose from the dead.

No he did not -- there is no account or evidence claiming this. Tossing in falsehoods like this only proves the point further: The case of Jesus in 30 AD is by far the most documented example of anyone having been killed and then resurrecting back to life 2 or 3 or 4 days later. There are no other comparable cases you can cite. That you have to make up phony examples like John Frum, out of desperation, only proves the point that there are no other cases.

What? From before the time of the Roman Empire we have had numerous historians writing first hand accounts. Here is Wikipedia’s simple list.


Some of these may have written about earlier Roman or Greek history that they personally didn’t witness or gather from first hand accounts, but many did. Furthermore there were official archives that were kept by the Romans that many had access to. Thats how all history has been written even today.

More importantly the claims that they are making are, for the most part, not about some kind of miracles or actions by gods. If they do, we discount such nonsense. We have no serious evidence of the early founding of Rome. Archeology has managed to uncover some of the clues, but we don’t seriously accept the stories of Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she wolf. And we certainly shouldn’t accept the stories of a risen Jesus, or a risen Osiris.

Furthermore, for their histories to be utterly false the entirety of western civilization would be different. That isn’t required at all for the gospels. It’s only their eventual widespread adoption centuries later that impacted history.

And the claims of the gospel are indeed extraordinary, and they Require extraordinary evidence of such. Water does not change spontaneously in to wine. People can’t walk on water, at least not without big floaties. And they don’t rise from being truly dead.

Finally these claims are more than merely historical, they imply divine intervention in the world, and point towards the only source of salvation for all of humanity. So, yes, a god, or at least any decent god, would have left us with extraordinary evidence behind. At a minimum, he could have left us with A blue ray dvd of everything important that had happened. Along with a men’s to play it. Or he could have left us with instructions on how to cure cancer, defeat blindness, or a host of other things.

This failure speaks volumes. It’s painfully obvious that it’s a myth.

 

[steve_bank]

My favorite example of ancient history and historians is Herodotus known as Herodotus The Liar. He was known for making far away hearsay accounts he never saw into first had reporting.

 

[bilby]

My favorite example of ancient history and historians is Herodotus known as Herodotus The Liar. He was known for making far away hearsay accounts he never saw into first had reporting.

How do you know? Did you ever hear him speak, or are you just relying on hearsay?

 

[SLD]

My favorite example of ancient history and historians is Herodotus known as Herodotus The Liar. He was known for making far away hearsay accounts he never saw into first had reporting.

How do you know? Did you ever hear him speak, or are you just relying on hearsay?

Thucydides called him that.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm going to agree with Mr. Proletariat on much of this, despite that he and I differ of course on the question of whether Jesus or his deeds were supernatural.

But even in the counterfactual case that Jesus did work wonders, Lumpen is correct that one wouldn't expect more documentation than we see. An imaginary dialog should clarify this point:

"Hey Jude. When you return to Athens, do you think you might make a side trip to Epidaurus?"
- - -- Possibly. Why?
"I'm hoping you can get the stories here down on papyrus. You did hear about the wedding up in Cana where water turned to wine, right? I hope you look up your old tutor's cousin Pamphile and see if she wants to write up that story."
- - -- Water into wine, hunh? They pulled that on me at the brothel in Sepphoris. Their crummy wine was already overpriced at 1 shekel per pitcher; and the drunker they thought I was the more they watered the wine down.
"Witnesses. I've got two witnesses. Or three if we count the town drunk."
- - -- Tipsy people can enjoy cheap wine. Heck, even with the overpriced wine I enjoyed my trip to the Galileean brothel. Pure pleasure at half the price the "sophisticated" ladies of Athens charge.
"OK. But what about the same guy walking across the Sea of Galilee? I admit that the only witnesses were the guy's most devout followers, but they're willing to swear to their vision on their Torah."
- - -- Yeah, sure Just ask them what kind of mushrooms they're eating. See if you can get some for me.

The following quotes make sense to me. I'm not going to jostle the quote tags to show who said what. The quote tags seemed bollixed already even before I started!

Just as we have virtually no contemporary sources for ancient history characters generally. There are a tiny few exceptions, where a historian wrote of events contemporary to himself. That's the rare exception. The norm is 50-100-200 years later, from the time of the event(s) to the date of the source which reports it.

Pontius Pilate was the most important man in Judaea for ten years, while Jesus was a little-known bumpkin for a year or two. Yet documentation of Pilate is VERY meager.

Tacitus was perhaps the most important historian of Nero's reign but Tacitus wasn't even born when Nero began his brief reign.

The oldest copy of Tacitus' work dates from about nine CENTURIES after Tacitus' death. And of course that's not Tacitus' own writing but a copy made in about the 5th century.

The sober view is that documentation of Jesus, as measured by papyrus that has survived, is unusually LARGE.

. . .
Virtually none of the ancient history we know comes to us from eyewitness accounts. Very tiny few exceptions to this. The writers you rely on for the ancient history you know were 99% non eyewitnesses, never having seen the events they report to you and yet which you believe without question. Virtually all the historians rely on oral reports, popular rumors, hearsay. A few find reliable sources, but mostly from ancient records, generations before their time. Which also the Gospel writers did.

Ancient history is DIFFICULT. Professional historians take great care. I admire them for tolerating laymen's questions instead of dismissing them with a shoulder shrug.

For example, although the legends of Gilgamesh must be mostly fiction ...

Most historians generally agree that Gilgamesh was a historical king of the Sumerian city-state of Uruk.

Take that, Richard Carrier with your banal mumbo-jumbo about the "Rank-Raglan criterion!"

Actually we have many firsthand accounts.

"many"? There are "many many many" ancient documents, only a few of which (a tiny few, TINY PERCENTAGE) are from writers contemporary to the events they reported. Percentagewise virtually all the history you know is from writers who were NOT contemporary to the events they report, but who reported events 50-100-200 years earlier than their time. Of course the total number of rare exceptions to this might add up to "many," but they are not typically where you derive your knowledge of ancient history. You do NOT dismiss writings dated 50-100 years later than the reported events (without tossing most ancient history out the window). The Gospel writings fit into this typical normal category of historical sources. They date from about 40-70 years later than the reported events, which is a relatively short time span for our ancient history sources. And for Paul this time span is only about 20 years.

I've seen estimates that put Paul's earliest epistles within a decade of the crucifixion. And of course, Christianity was already spreading fast before Paul wrote.

. . .
It's more significant how SHORT this time span is. The number of reported ancient history events which we know from a source this close to the event reported is extremely small PERCENTAGEWISE. If you accept all those other sources, the mainline historians, even though they report what happened 100 years ago, you cannot condemn the Gospels as non-history only because there's a time gap of 40-70 years later, and Paul who is only 20-25 years later. It's not any long time gap between the writings and the earlier reported events which makes the accounts less reliable.

Paul was not an eyewitness.

Virtually none of our ancient history writings are from eyewitnesses. Even Caesar and other contemporaries reported mostly events they did not witness directly, not seeing it with their own eyes.

Yes it does:

Mark 16: 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
6 But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."

It doesn't narrate any resurrection appearances, but it anticipates these, as the women are told where they should go to see him again.
. . .
Both Mt and Lk contain accounts not in Mark. Both of them obviously relied on many sources, not just Mark.

There was certainly some sort of "Q source." And there is strong evidence that at least part of Q was written in Aramaic, a fact which Carrierists cannot concede since their house of cards would collapse.

. . .
This is evidence that maybe Jesus was not the religious teacher we have been told he was. Maybe the "teachings of Jesus" are mainly words put into his mouth by later writers. If he did not preach all that stuff, then maybe it's reasonable that Paul would not quote from him. Much of the teachings really came later, though some also came from earlier apocalyptic preachers (earlier than the Gospels or even Paul), i.e., Jewish preachers who put their words into the mouth of Jesus just as later Christian writers put their Christian teachings into his mouth.

Paul's version of Christianity was totally different from that of Peter and James. This severe rivalry is strong evidence FOR historicity. To imagine that Paul somehow "piggy-backed" onto Peter's myth (which Paul did NOT endorse) becomes incompatible with Carrierist dogma.

 

[SAKArthur]

For agnostics and atheists looking for a good fictional read, try I Am Yeshua (https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Yeshua-Gospel-Jesus-ebook/dp/B0DYFCFD7C). It's a fictional retelling of the gospels, thought-provoking and entertaining. Using the actual history, theology, philosophy, and metaphysical understandings of the first century, it presents the life of Jesus from a loving, humanistic perspective, while wrapping it in an exciting modern-day adventure story. I Am Yeshua will be challenging for those who believe the New Testament is inerrant, or for those who do not wish to have their faith challenged. But for everyone else, it's quite an enjoyable read!

https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Yeshua-Gospel-Jesus-ebook/dp/B0DYFCFD7C

Amazon.com: I Am Yeshua: The Gospel of Jesus eBook : Arthur, S. A. K. : Books In an out-of-the-way valley in northern England, Secretary-General of the United Nations, William “Mac” MacCrarey – the last living descendant of the man known to history as King Arthur – learns of the existence of a two-millennia-old gospel. www.amazon.com

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Did Emperor Nero rise from the dead?
and many others also?

Lumpenproletariat:

EXCERPT from the Historical Jesus Chat Room 6/4/25

Lumpenproletariat
If the ones who saw Jesus only hallucinated it, why aren't there some other similar cases of reported miracles (also hallucinated) but about someone other than Jesus? E.g., why didn't they hallucinate John the Baptizer doing miracles?

Joe In Cal
we have 100's of stories of similar hallucinations and also imposters

Lumpenproletariat
you can't quote any of those examples

Joe In Cal
Nero is a great example from the same period

Lumpenproletariat
nothing in the literature of the time.

Joe In Cal
lol I just did

Lumpenproletariat
No, there are no reported miracles of Nero.

Joe In Cal
There's roman literature about Nero 'returning from the dead'

Lumpenproletariat
You can't quote any text saying that.

Lumpenproletariat
You can't quote any

Joe In Cal
There was even an attempt to put together a rebellion based on the risen Nero

Lumpenproletariat
You never read that yourself.

Lumpenproletariat
You have no quote of anyone reporting him being alive

Lumpenproletariat
after dying

Lumpenproletariat
Joe in Cal has to put me on block, because he can't answer.

Joe In Cal
Let's see. For Nero rising we have... The Sibylline Oracles, also Irenaeus, and Dio Chrysotom

Lumpenproletariat
no evidence

Lumpenproletariat
Quote them. You have no quote from them

Joe In Cal
The reason you don't know is you failed to look

Lumpenproletariat
No text saying that

Joe In Cal
I just named 3 texts lol

Lumpenproletariat
200 300 years later

Joe In Cal
Yeah - so within a few decades

Joe In Cal
but most a century or more later

Joe In Cal
just like Jesus

Lumpenproletariat
You can't quote it. You've never read that.

Joe In Cal
I just gave you three.

Lumpenproletariat
No you did not quote what they said.

Joe In Cal
lol

Lumpenproletariat
Tho I'll check on Irenaeus.

Joe In Cal
Sure you will.

Joe In Cal
lol

Lumpenproletariat
That would be about 100 years later.

Lumpenproletariat
You don't have any quotes from anyone who believed Nero was seen alive after he croaked.

Lumpenproletariat
Maybe there was a vision by a private person, alone, yes, there are hallucinations --- one person alone having a vision.

Joe In Cal
The claims of 'Nero risen' began within a few years of Nero's death.

Lumpenproletariat
Like Apollonius of Tyana, reported, one person alone had a feeling, felt him present.

Joe In Cal
There were at least 3 times Nero allegedly 'rose'.

Lumpenproletariat
You have no text for that.

Lumpenproletariat
You're making that up.

Joe In Cal
I posted three.

Joe In Cal
lol

Lumpenproletariat
If you can't quote it, that disproves it.

Joe In Cal
The first case was around 68 AD - just after Nero died.

Lumpenproletariat
We can quote the texts saying Jesus was seen alive after

Joe In Cal
Then it happened again around 79-81 AD.

Lumpenproletariat
Paul reports it 20 years later.

Lumpenproletariat
You don't have the quote.

Joe In Cal
And then a third time - much later.

Lumpenproletariat
You've never read it.

Lumpenproletariat
You're just making it up.

Lumpenproletariat
Yes, probably a vision or 2, from one person only.

Joe In Cal
Paul never claimed to have met the actual Jesus - Paul's Jesus was a spirit that spoke to him in visions and through codes in the torah.

Lumpenproletariat
at best.

Joe In Cal
Look it up.

Lumpenproletariat
Paul reported it.

Lumpenproletariat
He was contemporary.

Lumpenproletariat
He reported that Jesus was seen alive.

Joe In Cal
He never met the man Jesus.

Joe In Cal
Paul never reported that, no.

Lumpenproletariat
You can't give anything similar for Nero.

Joe In Cal
I just did.

Lumpenproletariat
Of course Nero was a vastly famous notorious celebrity, worshiped or hated by many millions of subjects.

Lumpenproletariat
A vastly notorious celebrity can have a miracle or 2 associated with him, in popular rumor.

Lumpenproletariat
but only a famous celebrity.

Lumpenproletariat
not a nobody who had no power = Jesus in 30 - 60 or 70 or 80 AD.

Joe In Cal
We also have Romulus, Julius Ceasar, Apollonius of Tyana, Antinous, Asclepius and others.

Lumpenproletariat
Jesus was not widely known of until maybe 150 AD.

Lumpenproletariat
No evidence for ANY of those.

Lumpenproletariat
They're all debunked.

Lumpenproletariat
You can't quote for any of those.

Joe In Cal
Jesus was widely known enough by 50 AD to have established churches in Antioch and other places which Paul visited.

Lumpenproletariat
You have no text saying it, from that time of history.

Joe In Cal
You can't name a single book that says Jesus rose from the dead.

Lumpenproletariat
Only modern critics say those people did reported miracles.

Lumpenproletariat
No ancient text says it.

Joe In Cal
You can't name a single book that says Jesus did miracles.

Lumpenproletariat
5 1st century sources say Jesus rose.

Joe In Cal
not one

Lumpenproletariat
We have AT LEAST 5 sources which say Jesus rose and was seen by many witnesses.

Lumpenproletariat
= evidence

Joe In Cal
You can't name a single book that says Jesus rose from the dead.

Lumpenproletariat
No evidence for the others.

Lumpenproletariat
5 sources. The 4 Gospels and Paul.

Lumpenproletariat
They report that he had been killed, buried, then raised back and seen alive by many witnesses.

Joe In Cal
You can't name a single book that says Jesus rose from the dead.

Lumpenproletariat
No such evidence for Nero or those others.

Lumpenproletariat
5 sources say Jesus rose.

Lumpenproletariat
4 gospels

Joe In Cal
nope

Joe In Cal
not source at all

Lumpenproletariat
attested, real documents from the 1st century

Joe In Cal
nope

Lumpenproletariat
Paul, several epistles

Joe In Cal
You have never read a gospel.

Joe In Cal
You never read Paul.

Lumpenproletariat
Those do exist.

Joe In Cal
you're making it up

Joe In Cal
They don't exist.

Lumpenproletariat
You're calling all the scholars liars.

Joe In Cal
No, you are.

Lumpenproletariat
All the liars say those books do exist, mss in museums, proof.

Lumpenproletariat
All the scholars you call liars.

Joe In Cal
You're making up imaginary books.

Joe In Cal
You can't name a single gospel that mentions Jesus.

Lumpenproletariat
They all say that the 4 Gospels do exist, same text we have today, from the ancient mss

Lumpenproletariat
Tell a scholar that Matthew and Luke etc. don't mention Jesus.

Lumpenproletariat
Even Richard Carrier admits that those books mention Jesus.

Joe In Cal
There's no Richard Carrier.

Lumpenproletariat
Ask Richard Carrier if Jesus is mentioned in Matthew Mark etc.

Lumpenproletariat
Ask Richard Carrier.

Joe In Cal
Nobody has ever lived named Richard Carrier.

Lumpenproletariat
I should boot you.

Joe In Cal
You're making it up.

Lumpenproletariat
You're being an asshole.

Joe In Cal
I'm simply doing back to you what you tried to do to me.

Joe In Cal
You asked who in history was claimed to have risen from the dead.

Lumpenproletariat
I'm restraining myself from pushing the boot button on you,- saying such lies

Joe In Cal
I gave you 5 examples.

Joe In Cal
There's many more.

Lumpenproletariat
You're just goofing off.

Lumpenproletariat
You can't quote them.

Joe In Cal
Rabbi Judah, Kabir, Sabbatai Sevi, Sri Yukteswar

Joe In Cal
You have failed to quote anything.

Lumpenproletariat
We have quoted the Gospel texts on this many times.

Joe In Cal
nope

Joe In Cal
not one quote

Lumpenproletariat
You've read it many times.

Joe In Cal
nope

Joe In Cal
You asked who in history was claimed to have risen from the dead.

Lumpenproletariat
Acts 1 reports the resurrection.

Joe In Cal
I gave you now 10 names.

Lumpenproletariat
Each of the 4 Gospels gives its version.

Joe In Cal
You asked for sources.

Joe In Cal
I gave you sources.

Lumpenproletariat
There is no text from any of those names.

Joe In Cal
You claimed those sources don't exist.

Joe In Cal
So I am claiming your sources don't exist.

Lumpenproletariat
They don't say any resurrection happened of those others.

Lumpenproletariat
You're lying obviously, just being a dork.

Joe In Cal
The gospels never mention a resurrection.

Joe In Cal
You're just lying.

Lumpenproletariat
You know that is in the Gospels and in Paul.

Joe In Cal
Nope, not resurrection in the gospels.

Joe In Cal
I can play the same stupid game you're trying to play.

Joe In Cal
guess I'll let you sit alone and think about it.

Joe In Cal
Left the room

Lumpenproletariat
So, cut to the chase --- in order to make your point you have to tell asshole lies, which you know are false. You know that the 4 Gospels mention the resurrection.
___________________________________________________________________________

OK, some of the above is silly (near the end especially). But there are some legitimate points raised, amidst the goof-off remarks by Joe in Cal.


For now here's a Google Search response, about Nero:

Question:

Google answer:

No, Nero was not reported to have been risen back to life after his death. However, a widespread belief, especially in the eastern provinces, arose that he was not truly dead and would return. This belief led to at least three individuals claiming to be Nero redivivus (resurrected) in the years following his suicide in AD 68. These impostors were eventually exposed and executed.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• The Nero Redivivus Myth:
  After Nero's death, a strong belief, particularly in the eastern regions of the Roman Empire, emerged that he was not truly gone and would return.
• False Claimants:
  At least three individuals presented themselves as "Nero reborn" in the years following his death, seeking to exploit the widespread belief in his return.
  • One claimant, who was similar in appearance to Nero and played the cithara, appeared the year after Nero's death and was eventually captured and executed.
  • Another impostor appeared during the reign of Titus, also known for his resemblance to Nero and musical abilities, but he was also exposed.
  • A third pretender, supported by the Parthians, appeared during the reign of Domitian, but was also eventually given up.

• Nero as the Antichrist
  After Nero's suicide in AD 68, there was a widespread belief, especially in the eastern provinces, that he was not dead and someho...
  
  The University of Chicago

The Nero Redivivus legend was a belief popular during the last part of the 1st century that the Roman emperor Nero would return after his death in 68 AD. The legend was a common belief as late as the 5th century. The belief was either the result or cause of several imposters who posed as Nero leading rebellions.

The comparison of Jesus to Nero (or others) completely fails to give any explanation how we have these miracle accounts about Jesus. There were a few widely-famous celebrities about whom there is a miracle story or two, because of their widespread fame among millions of people under their power or influence. That vast fame and their celebrity status easily explains how there developed some miracle tales about them, in the popular gossip of the day. Not dozens of such stories, but 1 or 2 or 3 in a few cases. Maybe Alexander the Great would be the most noteworthy example. Also 3 or 4 of the Roman Emperors.

Of course nothing of that nature can explain how Jesus got credited with doing so many miracle acts, because in his time he had no status, no power over anyone, no fame. It wasn't until 100 years after his time that he was becoming a "famous" miracle-worker legend.

There are virtually no written accounts of others performing miracle acts. I.e., not from any source close to the time of the reported miracle-worker. Apollonius of Tyana and Hanina ben-Dosa and a few others are mentioned in a source centuries later, but not in a source dated near their time. And there's only one source reporting anything about them doing miracle acts. So there are no other reported miracle-workers, in all the ancient literature. Jesus stands apart in this regard. Whatever the explanation.

Written accounts saying that something happened are evidence that it happened. Such written accounts are our main evidence for ancient history events. Extra sources, rather than only one, make the case stronger. The only evidence that the Jesus miracles did not happen is the dogmatic premise that such events simply cannot happen regardless of the evidence. This is the only argument that can be given to debunk the Jesus miracles/Resurrection.