Chris Weimer

Except for minor details, it had all been hashed out at the latest the third century.

Wine has symbolic Jewish roots, plus you're positing an extremely early date for Matthew. Where's the evidence?

Verily, there is nothing new under the sun, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist! Moreover, there's plenty unique to Jesus. Name any surrounding religion that had the concept of the Messiah.

I don't think you're accurate in lumping every writer together under the same motive. This is one of the clearest examples of arguments from ignorance even where evidence isn't necessarily expected. Just because some Protestants today don't recognize the Apocrypha doesn't mean that the Catholics never did. There was never one universal consensus on the man, but arguing that the evidence didn't exist because one man didn't write about it is quite simply unfounded.

Yes I do, actually, especially since other Christian fathers before him had written even profusely about the cross.

Non sequitur.

ETA: I didn't even have to look at who you were quoting to know it was a ludicrous assertion, but even now that I have, I can only shake my head and kindly ask you to read up on other works that Tertullian has written.

Richbee

Nonsense! Do you mean that some heretics or ignorant fools attempted to combine paganism with belief in Jesus as a "god'?

Here is an excellent free resource, and I quote:

In Search of Jesus

Peter Jennings - ABC:

One academic on his program sees the claim of the virgin birth arising from the contemporary scene of Greek and Roman mythologies. John Dominic Crossan, one of the radically liberal guests, stated that this Christian myth runs parallel to the story surrounding Caesar Augustus, whose mother was believed to be impregnated by the sun god, Apollo.

That is like saying, “Elephants have ears; I have ears; therefore, I am an elephant.�

Does one not know the difference between myth and an historic claim, even as measured then and now?

Alexander the Great tried to slip out of his bed at night hoping to drown himself and let the world think he was divine. His wife dragged him back to bed and told him to get some sleep.

Jesus prophesied his death and resurrection. That is what changed the disciples when it happened the very way He said it would. Where are the Caesars and the Apollos in that fashion?

Noticeably absent from Mr. Jennings’ lineup were outstanding New Testament scholars who could have shown the difference. Maybe the program should have been titled “The Obscuring of Jesus.�

Source: The Search for Jesus - Slice of Infinity - Click Here

Spanky

This is also our question?

countjulian

I can't believe that Peter Jennings would spew such utter BS.

Malachi151

Here is the thing about the parallels between "Jesus" and other surrounding myths:

The analysis of HJ goes along similar lines as the analysis of evolution. In science we prove what is not possible, and then ask what is most likely to be true. Will it always remain possible that “God did it�? Yes. But if you can explain something fully according material evidence, then what scientifically minded people conclude is that the natural explanation is the best explanation. If there is no way to provide a natural explanation, then we can rule out all natural explanations, but in the case of Jesus, we cannot rule out natural explanation for the creation of a Jesus myth.

In order to analyze the story of Jesus the first question that we have to ask is, what are the possible origins of the story of Jesus:

1) The first possible origin is that this person existed and he did all of the things that he is claimed to have done in the texts written about him. Thus, his existence is the source of the story.

2) The second possibility is that the accounts of Jesus are based on some historical person existed, but the events and actions attributed to the story have been embellished.

3) The third possibility is that the story of Jesus is just a myth that has its origin in the myths of other religions.

Just as with other aspects of science, when we try to understand something we rule out what is not possible.

When we examine the story of Jesus this is what we come up with:

1) Were there any existing myths prior to the appearance of the story of Jesus, upon which the story of Jesus could have been founded.

Answer: Yes, virtually every single aspect of the story of Jesus has precedents in other religions that existed in the area at that time.

Based on this we cannot rule out the idea that the story of Jesus is just based on these other myths.

2) Did Jesus personally leave behind any trace of his existence?

Answer: No, there are no traces of the existence of Jesus left behind by Jesus, unlike many other people who lived during the same time, who did leave behind personally written works, and whose homes and locations of burial are known.

3) Is there a possible motivation in claiming that Jesus "bodily ascended to heaven"?

Answer: Yes. The fact that "bodily scent to heaven" is part of the story of Jesus is an excellent indication that there was no Jesus at all, because the claim that his body went to heaven is a means that is used to explain why there is no burial site of Jesus. Its a means to explain why there is no proof of his existence, as if to say, "don’t look for Jesus, you will not find him".

4) If a historical Jesus did exist, and he did not bodily ascent to heaven, then wouldn't followers of Jesus who knew the historical Jesus have marked his grave and worshiped it?

Answer: Very likely. The graves of known leaders were often worshiped at the time, and still are. If he did exist his body would have been revered and his location of burial would have been known, unless he was not crucified at all, and he ended his life in obscurity, in which case most of the story of Jesus if still made up.

5) Was there debate among the early Christians as to whether or not Jesus really existed?

Answer: Yes. Many of the early Christians believed that Jesus was an idea or a god that never existed in human form.

6) Is there one single written account of Jesus from a person who personally knew Jesus?

Answer: No. We have no evidence that ANYONE ever met Jesus. The only stories that exist are stories ABOUT people who knew Jesus. There are zero first hand accounts of Jesus.

7) Are the teachings attributed to Jesus new or novel or were they common teachings that were part of many religions and had been attributed to many other mythical figures?

Answer: Not one single teaching attributed to Jesus is without precedent. Every single thing that Jesus is claimed to have taught was a teaching that was already present in the area of Palestine before Jesus supposedly existed.

So, we have to ask, what is the most likely explanation for these facts?

First, if we exclude the possibility that Jesus actually was God in human form on earth, and that he really had these magical powers and that he really bodily ascended to heaven, then we are left with looking for evidence that a human existed to which the story of Jesus has been attributed

If we expect to find a human who launched the Christian religion through his teachings and the personal following that he created then:

1) We should expect that this person would have left behind some written record
2) We should expect that other people would have personally written accounts of this person, not just second hand accounts
3) We should expect that his body was buried somewhere and that his followers would have known of his burial (unless he died in obscurity, not in a grand crucifixion)
4) We should expect that the details of his life and death would have been known by his followers
5) We should expect there to have been early agreement on who Jesus was, with there being less agreement on his life over time

If we expect that the story of Jesus is based on the story of other mythological saviors, then:

1) We should expect to find other mythical savior stories that are similar to the story of Jesus existing in the area of Palestine prior to and during the origin of the Christian religion
2) We should expect to find early widespread disagreement about who Jesus was, with a later consolidation of the story of Jesus

So far, can we rule out that Jesus was just a myth?

No defiantly not. Every condition that we expect to find if Jesus was a myth does exist. None of what we expect to find is Jesus was a human exists.

Is it more likely that the events attributed to Jesus’ life were borrowed from other myths or that this person really lived and really did all of the things that were already attributed to other mythical saviors?

If one believes that Jesus was god and had special powers and bodily ascended to heaven, then of course there is little reason to doubt anything.

If one believes that Jesus was a human, and that all of the magical parts of the story were embellishments, then one has to ask:

What is more likely, that the whole story was made up (for which we have hundreds of precedents for just this scenario) or that a real person existed, who was the basis for this story.

If the real person existed then that means he would not have bodily ascended into heaven. If he didn't bodily ascend into heaven then is it more likely that he was real, but no one knew where the founder of this religion was buried, or that he was not real at all, and just a myth?

If he was just a myth, then what was the basis for the myth?

Since a person cannot be the basis for the myth if the person never existed, then there has to be some other basis, and that is where the existing myths in the region of Palestine come in.

Every piece of material that is needed to construct the myth of Jesus existed in Palestine at the time of the emergence of his story.

For the supporters of the HJ in this thread:

1) Provide the earliest texts that you know of (outside of the Bible) that discuss the "crucifixion" of Jesus.

2) Provide the earliest texts that you know of that link the worship of the cross to the crucifixion of Jesus.

If Jesus was crucified then:

A) According to the current Christian religion, his crucifixion would have been central to the beliefs of the early Christians.

B) If Jesus was just a man, but nevertheless the basis for Christianity, then if he was crucified his followers would have known where he was buried and would have worshiped his grave site.

Zeichman

Would you contest Simon Peter's existence? Would you contest Alexander the Great's existence?

Can you demonstrate that the early Christians believed this doctrine?

I would reccomend reading up on Peter Kirby's case against the Empty Tomb, if you haven't already.

I'm confused as to whether or not you are intentionally mischaracterizing the Docetic controversy. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the Docetists did not believe in a historical Jesus. They only contested the natuer of his humanity.

Couldn't the same be said of Ghandi or MLK Jr.?

Ignoring, of course, the 95% + illiteracy rate in Palestine at the time.
What, exactly, is "grand" about the crucifixtion?
What is the evidence otherwise?
Only, of course, based on the testimony of first-generation Christians, whose writings are completely lost, if such writings ever existed. THere is simply a lack of evidence to even consider this as an argument.


Screw Occam's razor! We can just appeal to whatever broad parallel we choose!


Why? Evidence points that not all first-century Christians even regarded him as the Messiah, let alone an individual worthy of worship. Furthermore, what is the evidence that Jesus recieved a proper burial at all? The evidence for the fleshly ascention, iirc, is the Acts of the Apostles, one of the last-written books of the Christian Testament.

Malachi151

Wow, talk about obscurianism!

So basically what you are saying is that the early Christians didn't care about Jesus, and didn't necessarily know anything about his death, and that his supposed crucifixion and resurrection were not important for the first 200-400 years of Christianity, and that you feel this SUPPORTS the existnace of a historical Jesus....

mmmmkayyyyy......

Chris Weimer

Or that one several existed and the names and actions merged, or that only a sliver of the HJ exists and lots of it was fiction, or that lots of the actions actually happened but it was twisted to appear embellished.

Oh really? Which aspects are that? How many of these religions had a concept of the Soter-Christos? Or how about Temple purity? Israel reunification? Torah observance? Kosher foods? Hrm, I can't think of any.:huh:

Based on this we cannot rule out the idea that the story of Jesus is just based on these other myths.

Irrelevant to the clause. We have no writings of JtB either, but his existence is even documented by Josephus.

Explain why later on burial sites were noted and why no one uses the excuse "don't look for Jesus..." in their writings - at all.

False. We have no grave for the Teacher of Righteousness either, are we going to assume him fictional? Especially if the historical Jesus really was crucified, then there would be no grave at all! A little fake dilemma you give here. Crucified criminals were left on the cross until picked at by wild animals. It is dishonest to demand a gravesite where none would exist.

Name an early author who didn't think that Jesus came to earth at all.

I don't see how this is relevant? Many people die every day without leaving a trace of their existence. Demanding this much is quite ludicrous.

Which teaching was going around claiming that you don't have to follow strict observance to the Torah?

A quite selective list of facts, I might add.

Where's the ToR written record?

And if parousia was expected, why would this occur?

Crucifiction regardless left no burial. Where's the grave of Spartacus? Exactly.

What followers?

Why?

Wouldn't this be the exact opposite? If someone wrote a story about a mythological Jesus, then you'd think that everyone would be able to reference the story. However, if someone lived in relative obscurity, many different people meeting this person would each have come across him differently and thus produce their own traditions, which is what we see.

No, but it's neither safe to rule out that Jesus existed historically either.

Utterly false.

Why outside the Bible? Dismissing Biblical claims is akin to putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALA!" The tradition derived from the pre-gospel passion account and Paul are adequate.

Irrelevant, especially if Jesus wasn't worshipped by his earliest followers. Why do you assume this so?

Totally unsupported and baseless assertion. There's nothing suggesting that Jesus' crucifiction had to be worshipped so early.

All in all, Malachi, I expected better.

Zeichman

If you were familiar with modern scholarship you would know that this position is held by many, many scholars. And you're completely mischaracterizing what I said.

FIRST generation Christians (i.e. those who knew Jesus converted to some form of proto-christianity around 30s CE) have no documents, and there IS no evidence aside from appeals to Acts of the Apostles (acknowleged to be near historically useless by most scholars) that they said anything about his tomb or manner of death. The specific documents which I mentioned- The early Q community, the Thomean community, the Signs group never in their writings refer to Jesus' death or resurrection. For second generation Christians, like Paul, and the evangelists, the emerging proto-orthodoxy changed the focus to Jesus' salvic death, growing alongside the groups I already mentioned. However, in the years before the gospels were written, there are distinct writings which are completely silent about Jesus' messiahship, death and resurrection. I have no idea where you got the third and fourth century number from.

Your claim that the ascention was invented to cover up a historical Jesus is uninformed speculation. Acts was written well after all of the first-generation Christians were dead, and there would be little need to appeal to such an event. Furthermore, there are certain groups which show no concern about such things, and they survived along the time period which the resurrection-oriented groups did.

If I'm so obviously full of BS, I'm confident you can demolish all of what I said here and above.

Your move, sir.

Chris Weimer

:rolling: :notworthy:

I only have a couple of minor concerns.

This is probably best explained by the imminent parousia. I argued that here.

Q and Thomas? Well, perhaps not messiahship, but death and resurrection?