Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 08-27-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

JD47404. Bronze AE 20, Hendin 1163, Meshorer .........

Er, how do any of these coins inform your position on the two Jesuses thing? That's what I'm getting at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Theudas et al?

I don't have any evidence for historicity......

What's your opinion on whether Theudas, and/or John the Baptist, may have existed?

archibald · 08-27-2011, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Is There Independent Confirmation of What the Gospels Say of Jesus?
George A. Wells

Sounds like something I would enjoy reading. If you can get hold of a copy, let me know.

If I were to guess, I'd say the answer is, 'not really'.

maryhelena · 08-27-2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Before one starts debating what 'Paul' thought or did - one has to have the context in which he operated. That context involves JC. Without this fundamental question being settled - is JC historical or pseudo-historical - everything else is blowing in the wind. As I said - stay with a flesh and blood JC - but don't go making any claims for historicity because such claims cannot be substantiated. JC historicists need to bow out of this debate gracefully and be content with their assumption re JC. For those interested in searching for early christian origins, it is historical people and events that must take priority over assumptions re the gospel JC story.

Maryhelena, I don't think it is as hopeless as that. I think that Wells rightly evaluates Paul as believing in a Jesus who lived on earth at some point. If he is right and that Jesus lived several hundred years before Paul, then yes, that would like trying to decide on the historicity of Hercules based on texts written hundred of years after Hercules supposedly lived.

The Galilean preacher of Wells was not crucified. Wells does not have Paul identifying any specific flesh and blood crucified figure:

Quote:

The Jesus Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk)

If Paul envisaged any historical circumstances for Jesus’s death, he may well have thought of his ‘Christ crucified’ as one of the victims of earlier Jewish rulers. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing near the end of the first century A.D., tells that Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria in the second century B.C., and the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus, of the first century C.C., both caused living Jews to be crucified in Jerusalem (Josephus expressly notes that in these cases this punishment was not inflicted after execution, as it often was). Both periods of persecution are alluded to in Jewish religious literature (for instance in the Dead Sea Scrolls); and Jannaeus’s crucifixion of 800 Pharisees left a strong impression on the Jewish world. Paul’s environment, then, would have knows that pious Jews had been crucified long ago, although dates and circumstances would probably have been known only vaguely.

All that amounts to is that Wells is saying that Paul has looked to historical circumstances involving crucifixion - and used that earthly, physical, reality as the model for his heavenly parallel. It is the fused figure of Well's gospel JC that is crucified - ie the composite figure made up of his non-crucified Galilean preacher plus Paul's cosmic/spiritual crucified JC figure. Wells does not have a his Galilean preacher crucified. It's the fused creation, the gospel JC that is crucified.

Quote:

But if Paul is arguably writing about someone in his immediate past, then the confidence (if not 100% certainty) rises significantly. Add to that 1 Clement and Papias, then we have a very strong circumstantial case indeed about a Jesus who lived around the time the Gospels set the story, and interacting with disciples who are also part of the Gospel stories.

Paul's immediate past? We don't know who Paul was or when he was active in missionary work. The dating of Paul in the NT chronology is a follow on to the gospel JC story. If that gospel JC is not historical - then there is no reason to place the preaching of Paul to be a chronological follow on to that story. 'Paul' could just as easily have been backdated to fit the gospel storyline.

Quote:

I don't think we can say much about sayings and actions that Jesus performed. But IMO the 'base facts' about Jesus as: a Galilean prophet (similar to Doherty's Q prophets) who was a real person (as Wells points out) and who was crucified (Wells, Doherty) sometime in Paul's immediate past (me) seems pretty solid. And the best explanation for all these things is that there was in fact such a Jesus.

GDon - all your are referencing are the base facts about the gospel story about JC. These are not historical facts.

The best explanation for the gospel JC story is not a historical JC. The best explanation for the gospel JC story is that that story is an interpretation, an evaluation, a salvation appraisal, of specific historical realities and historical figures. As are the stories within the OT. Jewish stories that reflect Jewish historical realities viewed through a prophetic or salvation lens.

In effect - if one is assuming that the gospel JC is a historical JC - all one has done is interpret a story that is itself an interpretation. The consequence of which is - one big muddle that only compounds the difficulty of searching for early christian origins.

-------------------

My own views are not dependent upon Wells - I refer to Wells only because of his non-crucified figure. Actually, when I wrote to Wells - 20 plus years ago - he had not yet come to this position. It's gratifying to see that he has now realized that the gospel JC story is not all mythical. (I had sent him my idea re Philip the Tetrarch - a historical figure that was not crucified.) And no, I'm no expert on Wells - I don't have his books - only read on amazon or google books. And a photo-copy of an article, now lost, that someone gave me years ago.

maryhelena · 08-27-2011, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

JD47404. Bronze AE 20, Hendin 1163, Meshorer .........

Er, how do any of these coins inform your position on the two Jesuses thing? That's what I'm getting at.

My position is that the gospel JC figure is a pseudo-historical figure. A figure that has been created from the life stories of these two historical figures. Same sort of thing that any author would be doing in the creation of their characters.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Theudas et al?

I don't have any evidence for historicity......

What's your opinion on whether Theudas, and/or John the Baptist, may have existed?

My opinion is that there is no historical evidence for their existence.

maryhelena · 08-27-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ted, bottom line is that you cannot provide evidence to support the assumed historicity of the gospel JC. Can't be done.

That's not what I was addressing, but I fail to see how taking snippets of characters that resemble some of the storyline of JC as forming a basis is any more advisable than taking snippets of the storyline in the gospels.

Oh come now, Ted. There is no comparison here. Historical figures verse figures in a story....

Quote:

The idea that a physical crucifixion can be valued is the most immoral premise that can be uttered. Creativity my foot - more like a case of intellectual abdication.

Human sacrifices - please Ted - lets not throw reason out the window in some vain attempt to support the unsupportable.

Pardon me mary but your personal revulsion is totally irrelevant to whether others were revulsed. No doubt many were but that doesn't mean others were unable to see the frankly OBVIOUS connection with the annual passover sacrifices they were already doing.

Logic, Ted, logic. What does it matter how many people believe in nonsense?

Quote:

The gospel JC story is not dealing with such a monstrous despicable idea. Why? Because it is not dealing with a historical gospel JC. It is only the notion, the assumption, of a historical gospel JC, that generates such a preposterous idea. Remove that assumed historicity of the gospel JC - and the very notion of there being value in a human sacrifice goes with it.

I have no idea what you are talking about here mary. Sorry. Are you saying it never would have been applicable to a man who didn't perform real amazing feats? Why not? All it would take is some people believing he could be the Messiah and someone else seeing a passover connection with atonement for sins. It's actually a clever idea and Paul puts it nicely in Romans 5:

I'm totally bewildered. Ted, perhaps I've been out of the christian loop for so long that such talk is way behind me. I will not entertain such ideas re atonement for sins and human sacrifices...

Quote:

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Quote:

Logic, Ted, logic, reason, rationality - don't sacrifice them in your attempt to support the assumption of a historical crucified gospel JC.

I think Paul's logic, reason, and rationality is quite sound in the above passage. With a pre-existing expectation by some of a Savior-Messiah, the groundwork was set for believing that a crucified man could be the long-awaited Messiah.

Ted, transfer all that to a spiritual/intellectual context and things begin to look much more rational and logical. Within a physical earthly context such talk is degrading and has no trace of morality.

Kapyong · 08-27-2011, 05:27 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Er, how do any of these coins inform your position on the two Jesuses thing? That's what I'm getting at.

My position is that the gospel JC figure is a pseudo-historical figure. A figure that has been created from the life stories of these two historical figures. Same sort of thing that any author would be doing in the creation of their characters.....

That's exactly the problem I mean maryhelena - you posted these coins without any connection to the argument. So archibald asked you what the connection was.

Once again you just didn't answer the question - you simply repeated your position. Not only did you fail to answer the question - it's not clear that you even understood what archibald was asking.

K.

TedM · 08-27-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ted, bottom line is that you cannot provide evidence to support the assumed historicity of the gospel JC. Can't be done.

That's not what I was addressing, but I fail to see how taking snippets of characters that resemble some of the storyline of JC as forming a basis is any more advisable than taking snippets of the storyline in the gospels.

Oh come now, Ted. There is no comparison here. Historical figures verse figures in a story...

Your approach seems to me to be one of pattern-seeking, which is a natural human inclination and is known to be highly unreliable.

Quote:

Pardon me mary but your personal revulsion is totally irrelevant to whether others were revulsed. No doubt many were but that doesn't mean others were unable to see the frankly OBVIOUS connection with the annual passover sacrifices they were already doing.

Logic, Ted, logic. What does it matter how many people believe in nonsense?

What? The reason it matters is that it provides a basis for the acceptance of the concept of a recently crucified man as Messiah: that is, the more that believe it, the more likely it will catch on..

Quote:

I'm totally bewildered. Ted, perhaps I've been out of the christian loop for so long that such talk is way behind me. I will not entertain such ideas re atonement for sins and human sacrifices...

It appears to me that you are allowing your personal emotions to affect your analysis.

Quote:

Ted, transfer all that to a spiritual/intellectual context and things begin to look much more rational and logical. Within a physical earthly context such talk is degrading and has no trace of morality.

Degrading to who? Jews? Are you saying no Jewish person would accept the idea of a crucified Messiah? Is that your contention? If so I see absolutely zero basis for that belief other than an emotional one, and may I then ask you if you are Jewish? If I'm missing such a basis, please enlighten me.

Vincent Guilbaud · 08-27-2011, 06:20 PM

Thanks everybody for their comments.
I'm answering here to maryhelena and GakuseiDon...

maryhelena said

Quote:

Which means two historical figures are the primary elements in the creation of the gospel JC figure.
One historical figure was crucified and the other historical figure lived out his days.
The gospel JC is a composite, a fusing, of two historical figures.

Another possibility for the Myth Theory!
maryhelena, do you know any book that supports this theory?

So, mathematically, there are 4 combinaisons.

Myth theories based on two distinct movements:

	Galilean Founder	Historical Crucifixion
Doherty	------- 0	------- 0
Wells	------- X	------- 0
___ ?	------- 0	------- X
Maryhelena	------- X	------- X

Then, you quote E.D.:
Footnote Earl Doherty

Quote:

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths.

and conclude

Quote:

ie such a position allows for two NT crucifixion stories - one on earth and one in heaven....
So, Earl can have his heavenly spirit realm crucifixion for JC
- but he cannot then deny that a historical crucifixion was relevant to the creation of the gospel JC figure.

But, As Earl pointed, stories (including the ones of JC in the Gospels) are historical
only if they relate real specific events and characters in the same time & place and storyline.

And I guess it is not the case for your crucifixion.

[HR][/HR]

GakuseiDon, you describe both theories at the beginning:

Quote:

(for Wells) The Galilean preacher was probably not called Jesus nor crucified
...
Doherty's Paul believed in a celestial being who was crucified in a celestial realm in the indefinite past.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....40#post6904840

and then:

Quote:

But IMO the 'base facts' about Jesus as:
a Galilean prophet (similar to Doherty's Q prophets)
...and who was crucified (Wells, Doherty)
sometime in Paul's immediate past (me) seems pretty solid.
And the best explanation for all these things is that there was in fact such a Jesus.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....06#post6905606

maryhelena has already noticed the error, but I wonder...
Doherty & Wells say exactly the contrary,
no Galilean prophet was ever crucified around 30 CE in Jeruslem!
It's not a fact for them!

GakuseiDon, you also asked me:

Quote:

But are you happy with that?

Am I happy with Wells and Doherty's theories?
Yep I am.
Because they are the only ones that can correctly explain
why these two movements have nothing in common.

It's because they were separated!
:applause::thumbs::clapping:

GakuseiDon · 08-27-2011, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Paul's immediate past? We don't know who Paul was or when he was active in missionary work. The dating of Paul in the NT chronology is a follow on to the gospel JC story.

I think we do. Paul mentions Caesar and Aretas. 1 Clement refers to Paul as belonging to "our generation". Doesn't that help to date Paul?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

I don't think we can say much about sayings and actions that Jesus performed. But IMO the 'base facts' about Jesus as: a Galilean prophet (similar to Doherty's Q prophets) who was a real person (as Wells points out) and who was crucified (Wells, Doherty) sometime in Paul's immediate past (me) seems pretty solid. And the best explanation for all these things is that there was in fact such a Jesus.

GDon - all your are referencing are the base facts about the gospel story about JC. These are not historical facts.

I don't understand. None of those points are being derived from the Gospels. They are coming from Wells and Doherty, with the addition from me that arguably Paul thought Jesus died in Paul's immediate past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The best explanation for the gospel JC story is not a historical JC.

As I said, there are two questions: Jesus' historicity and what we can know about Jesus. These are two different questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

In effect - if one is assuming that the gospel JC is a historical JC - all one has done is interpret a story that is itself an interpretation.

Since I'm not doing that, your other points aren't relevant AFAICS.

aa5874 · 08-27-2011, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

.......But if Paul is arguably writing about someone in his immediate past, then the confidence (if not 100% certainty) rises significantly. Add to that 1 Clement and Papias, then we have a very strong circumstantial case indeed about a Jesus who lived around the time the Gospels set the story, and interacting with disciples who are also part of the Gospel stories....

"Paul" claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man and that he did NOT get his gospel from A Man so it it is just a waste of time trying to claim the Pauline Jesus was a MAN.

The Pauline Jesus was a Myth character, God's OWN Son made of a woman.

Once you introduce the NT Canon as evidence then it will be shown that Jesus was NOT a man.

You MUST know that the existence of Ghosts and Gods were invented hundreds of years before the 1st century.

The Pauline writings are about BELIEF NOT history.

"Paul" claimed Jesus, God's OWN Son, MUST resurrect for mankind to be SAVED and that according to the Scriptures that Jesus did.

"Paul" MERELY BELIEVED Scriptures. That is ALL.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.