The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by davidbrainerd »

outhouse wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:16 pm
davidbrainerd wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:44 am
themselves fictional character invented by Irenaeus,.

You have nothing to support such an imaginative claim.

Celsus may be fictional too,
This is unsupported and downright dishonest


Start providing sources for such blatant imaginative claims
Simon and the Simonians are pure fiction. Irenaeus, the peddler of our inerrant canon, including Acts, betrays his own principle of inerrancy to make Act's fictional yet repentant Simon Magus into an unrepentant fountainhead of heresy, complete with fictional genealogies linking every non-Catholic group's origin to this fictional man. Simon's doctrine? "There was no Jesus; it was just me in a magical Halloween costume. There was also no crucifixtion, just a couple of my buddies and some Katchup." Yet somehow every sect, including Marcion who believed and taught Jesus was real and fhe crucifixion was real, is supposedly derived from "Simon's teaching." Pure fiction, all of it.


addendum: Having Simon as the fountainhead of all heresy also betrays Irenaeus' claim that Marcion is the firstborn of Satan (i.e. fountainhead of all heresy)---AND contradicts Irenaeus' and Tertullian's claims of a period of purity for the church followed by heresy arising late (i.e. Simon as a character in Acts would be 1st century)...but Irenaeus is not concerned with consistency, only with creating an offensive label to shove all the disparate groups together under by.

addendum 2: since Irenaeus labels all non-Catholic groups as deriving from Simon, if someone later says "I met a Simonian" it means nothing. They could mean an Elkesite, or Valentinian, or Marcionite, or someone from any number of groups. Its equivalent to saying "heretic" and thus only means non-Catholic.

addendum 3: as to Celsus, in my view, without independent confirmation of his existence by a pagan source not dependent on Origen, there is no reason to see him as any more historical than opponent characters in fictional dialogues like the fictional pagan moderator in the Dialogue of Adamantius.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

davidbrainerd wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:25 pm
Simon and the Simonians are pure fiction.
Provide sources your very dishonest opinion is garbage here and holds zero credibility. :thumbdown:

What part of provide sources DONT you understand??


provide sources
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

davidbrainerd wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:25 pm There was also no crucifixtion
PROVIDE SOURCES

Idiocy and dishonesty are not credible methods of explaining what may or may not have been plausible in the past.

The crucifixion is close to fact, it is as fact as a historical event can be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Two widely accepted historical facts

Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.[9][52]

Uneducated bafoons rhetoric can be argued all day long, and the quotes above can be changed when evidence dictates it should be changed. Until then IT STANDS.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by neilgodfrey »

outhouse wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:35 pm
davidbrainerd wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:25 pm There was also no crucifixtion
PROVIDE SOURCES

Idiocy and dishonesty are not credible methods of explaining what may or may not have been plausible in the past.

The crucifixion is close to fact, it is as fact as a historical event can be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Two widely accepted historical facts

Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.[9][52]
........
God what nonsense is this?

Do "almost all modern scholars consider Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BCE"? Do "almost all scholars consider Hammurabi had a stone slab set up with a lot of laws engraved on it"? Do "almost all scholars consider that there was a war between Athens and Sparta in the fifth century BCE"?

There's no such thing as something being "close to fact" yet also "fact". "Fact" or "not fact" are the only alternatives. There is no "in between" or "close to" state that says "close to fact and that's good enough to be called a fact".

The mere fact that some scholars can dispute the "fact" that Jesus was baptized by John proves that that detail is interpretation, opinion, and not "fact" at all -- unless those scholars are idiots, which is unlikely.

There is no evidence to verify that Jesus was crucified. There are only hearsay reports from decades after the supposed event. And the first of these do not tell us that Jesus was crucified as a historical or biographical fact, but that the crucifixion was a theological concept that had theological meaning. That's not a good start for thinking it was also a historical fact, unless you happen to be a biblical scholar who is also a devout Christian or an atheist who thinks that by siding with believer scholars adds to one's credibility as a rationalist.

"The crucifixion is close to fact, it is as fact as a historical event can be."

"Mary is close to being pregnant, she is as pregnant as a historical woman can be."
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by MrMacSon »

outhouse wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:30 pm
davidbrainerd wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:25 pm Simon and the Simonians are pure fiction.
Provide sources your very dishonest opinion is garbage here and holds zero credibility. :thumbdown:

What part of provide sources DONT you understand??

provide sources
It's hard to prove a negative; especially in antiquity.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by MrMacSon »

outhouse wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:35 pm
davidbrainerd wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:25 pm There was also no crucifiction
"...The crucifixion is close to fact, it is as fact as a historical event can be."
"Uneducated bafoons rhetoric can be argued all day long, & the quotes can be changed when evidence dictates it should be changed.."
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:53 pm
outhouse wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:30 pm
davidbrainerd wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:25 pm Simon and the Simonians are pure fiction.
Provide sources your very dishonest opinion is garbage here and holds zero credibility. :thumbdown:

What part of provide sources DONT you understand??

provide sources
It's hard to prove a negative; especially in antiquity.
Then idiotic comments of certainty to the opposite should not have been made.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:53 pmThere is no evidence to verify that Jesus was crucified.
There is a mountain of evidence, you just refuse it all. :goodmorning:

You know better then to use a word like verify anyway.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by Bernard Muller »

There is no evidence to verify that Jesus was crucified. There are only hearsay reports from decades after the supposed event.
But, isn't it true we know of many (maybe most) events in antiquity by writings done decades later?
And the first of these do not tell us that Jesus was crucified as a historical or biographical fact, but that the crucifixion was a theological concept that had theological meaning.
Paul (and other contemporaries) did consider the Crucifixion as embarrassing:
1 Co 1:23 YLT "... Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness ..."
Gal 5:11 "... the offense of the cross ..."
2 Co 13:4 "... He was crucified in weakness ..."
an atheist who thinks that by siding with believer scholars adds to one's credibility as a rationalist.
Gee, I didn't know I was thinking that!

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:04 amBut, isn't it true we know of many (maybe most) events in antiquity by writings done decades later?



Cordially, Bernard
Yes historicity from this time period is determined differently then periods with textual evidence closer then said events.

You will always see mythicst fail in perverting evidence, usually failing to push dates away from said events. Look at the severe ignorance of mythicist who try and place Pauline dates out of context, let alone the gospel text. Its absurd.

While most past events were from illiterate cultures where textual evidence was not abundant, the cross cultural textual evidence is perverted even more then the same cultural text like Roman military texts. But that does not mean they are devoid of historical elements. Same for mythological text.

Example Noahs flood, has a factual historical flood/s in which the mythology grew many accretions over thousands of years. yet in all likelihood, a man probably went down a flooded river on a barge/boat loaded with animals or goods. It would be idiotic to think no one was ever swept down the flood waters and survived and told tales of his survival. Its highly probable. In Jesus case the textual evidence starts to build within decades from traditions from people who found value in the crucifixion, and it is a very well known factual punishment at Roman hands with named leaders mentioned in text.
Post Reply