Presuppositional skepticism. The new fad.

I wish I could win arguments in court by saying, X has already dealt with these conclusively your honor, check it out yourself and you'll see he's right.

Why would a pagan emmerse himself in Jewish customs, employ the language of Jewish eschatology which holds the firm conviction that God's intervention will be earthly, and then try and convince people join his mystery cult which actually believed in a purely spiritual mystery figure unconcerned with his historical reality?

But, I'm sure you will devastate me with, "Doherty responded to that."


[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 18, 2001).]

Thanks, but I've read both the review and the book. I do find MacDonald's book somewhat persuasive but I have to admit that though intriguing, it is not conclusive. However, for those that believe that Mark is largely a work of fiction that makes a story out of pre-existing traditions, MacDonald's books does hint at another possible source of inspiration for Mark's stories. I don't think most Christians would have too much problem with this view. Atheists and Christians could agree that Mark's writing was influenced by the writings and cultural beliefs of his time. Atheists and Christians could agree that there was a pre-existing tradition on which Mark formed his gospel. Atheists and Christians could even agree that a man named Jesus existed who inspired the stories. However, the subject of this thread is whether or not Jesus ever existed.

Thanks, I just blew off data analysis for a couple hours reading them. Quite informative. I get the impression that everyone talked past each other for the most part. We need to make it clear that we all agree that there was a pre-existing Christian tradition to which Paul converted. Clearly Paul describes various aspects of this Christianity including some of the activities of Jesus.

The question is, which of the following is better supported by the available evidence?

(1) Paul is basing his knowledge of Jesus on oral traditions derived from the actual events of a human Jesus that are later written down by Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts.

(2) Paul is basing his knowledge of Jesus on oral traditions not derived from the human Jesus depicted in Mark.

Version (2) has two different possibilities. One is that there was in fact a person who inspired the Christianity to which Paul converted, possibly named Jesus, but that the details of his life were largely unknown or at least quite different than the fiction of Mark. The other possibility is that the beliefs about Jesus were simply legends of the kind found in many different cultures throughout time.

What I didn't see in the threads was a convincing reason why it is unreasonable to believe that the beliefs about Jesus as put forth in Paul were based on a nonhuman being similar to those of Greek religions. Of course there are parallels between Paul's Jesus and Mark's Jesus. After all, both arose out of Christianity, a religion that all of us agree existed at the time. And if we accept that the Christian beliefs that Paul discusses were known to Mark as well, then it makes sense that Mark's story would contain the basic elements of Jesus' 'life' that we find in Paul. Why is it such a stretch to propose that Mark added quite a bit of information that wasn't available to Paul?

Keep in mind that I am not saying that the standard Christian view is obviously false. I think a reasonable case can be made for any number of scenarios. Obviously as a nonChristian I have a propensity towards the view that either Jesus was simply a man who inspired legends or that Jesus didn't exist. Christians clearly have a propensity towards accepting the Bible as accurate history.

Doherty is simply making the reasonable suggestion that Paul's Jesus and Mark's Jesus are not the same person and that it is not hard to imagine that Mark combined various aspects of Christian belief into a story about a God who became fully human.

And though many have pointed out that we have all the gospels as well as Q and Paul independently supporting the existence of Jesus, it seems to me that they simply support the existence of independent beliefs about Jesus. They give the impression that many different people disagreed on who Jesus was and what Christianity was about. Paul spends a great deal of effort trying to convince the churches that his views are superior to others, since of course, his views were revealed through scripture and visions. This is a strange notion considering there were supposedly many disciples around who knew Jesus personally, had him explain everything after his resurrection, and had filled them with the Holy Spirit ensuring their wisdom and power in proclaiming the truth. Shouldn't this have led to a rather clear record of Jesus' doings and teachings that permeated all of Christianity, including Paul's letters? Why does Paul make such a point out of saying that he doesn't receive his info. from any man, but instead teaches from revelation and scripture?

So Mark and John clearly have some shared stories but John still has quite a few stories found nowhere else? If this is true then John is aware of many stories possibly from oral traditions that the others aren't aware of or else just didn't include. Doesn't John say that there were many more that if he included would fill the whole world?

This seems to fit in just fine with the mythicist view. And why exactly would John's independence be a problem for Doherty? Doesn't Doherty accept that Christianity contained a lot of various traditions and stories. If Doherty accepts that there were stories about a Jesus that involve a death and resurrection among other things, which he believes happened in the 'lowest heaven', then certainly he would not be surprised that there were various stories being passed around about what this Jesus did.

The question is, how many of the stories were made up by Mark? And were any made up by John? I don't know. I haven't read much speculation on how all these stories developed. I suppose one view is that Mark made up quite a bit and this inspired the creation of more stories, some of which appear in the other gospels. Another view is that some or many of the stories in Mark already existed but were legendary and some of these appear in Mark and some in the other gospels. Either way, Doherty's view is that Paul's Christianity makes more sense given that the events presented in Mark did not in fact happen.


Even if John is somewhat independent, so what? If Mark could write a piece of mainly fiction and Luke and Matthew can copy and add as they see fit, why can't John be a bit creative himself? Matthew and Luke give every impression of trying to 'fix' Mark, whereas John appears to be pushing an almost radical view of Jesus as Logos. He does a drastic reworking of the stories of Jesus.

Oh, perhaps I'm a bit slow. I guess the point is that if you can show that John has no knowledge of Mark, Matthew, or Luke at all, then this is strong evidence that the idea of Jesus as a human who performed miracles either was created independently (unlikely coincidence) by more than one person, or else the notion preexisted Mark and John. And if there were stories being passed around about a human-God miracleworker, why not assume these stories refer to a person that actually lived? Sounds reasonable to me. I suppose a die-hard mythicist could still claim that someone besides Mark made up the miracle stories. Perhaps the various 'miracle-workers' of that time period inspired a variety of stories that were later collected and attributed to Jesus.

Regardless of the exact scenario, Doherty's claim is mainly that the events of the gospels did not in fact happen, and that Paul's Jesus was not based on a human person.

I'll check out the Spong info later. Thanks, Michael for your suggestions and links.

Excellent question. I have not read much on the proposed method by which Christianity came to exist. However, I am aware that there are numerous religions and religious stories that we all agree are false. They started somehow, however. I honestly have a hard time imagining exactly how Christianity could arise if its beliefs are false, but then again, I find it hard to believe that any religion could originate if its beliefs are false.

The assumption is that Paul's Christianity is a mix of Jewish and Greek theological concepts. The mixing of religious concepts is commonplace when one culture influences another. Paul's Christianity is clearly not a full-fledged mystery religion. And it is clearly not full-fledged Jewish theology. Wouldn't you agree that Paul's theology appears more Hellenized than that found in the Old Testament? Aren't there more similarities between the Greek ideas, especially Plato and Paul's theology than is found with Old Testament theology?

You point out that it wouldn't go over well with the Jews if Jesus was portrayed as not human. I'm tempted to agree. It's my impression, though, that the churches that Paul wrote to were not traditionally Jewish and that most of the cities like Corinth and Ephesus were largely Greek cities. Perhaps Christianity was most popular in regions where the influence of the Jews and Greeks were about equal. Christianity appears to be a mix of Jewish and Greek religious beliefs that would satisfy those who were influenced by both kinds of religious thought.

However, Paul does give the impression that there are Christians in Jerusalem, and that leaders such as Peter were clearly full-fledged Jews, or at least fully immersed in primarily Jewish beliefs. In fact, there are disagreements over how much of the Jewish customs should be retained by the Christians.

I think it would be fair to suggest that all of the Jewish people were well aware of Greek beliefs and customs. Unfortunately, my knowledge is growing even thinner than it usually is. I really don't know how unusual it would be for Peter in Jerusalem to believe in a Son of God called Jesus who existed only as a spiritual being similar to Greek Gods? Can anyone provide any insight based on the known influence of Greek culture and beliefs on the Jewish people?

I also don't think it is more reasonable to assume that Jews would be happier with the notion that God had become flesh. It is true that they believed that God interacted in history, but I think God as flesh would have been quite a heresy. No matter how you look at it, Christianity was considered heretical to most Jews.

[This message has been edited by PhysicsGuy (edited April 18, 2001).]

Toto

I made an attempt to start a dialogue and get beyond name calling, and this is what I get. I said that I thought Doherty had dealt with some objections which Bede had referred to, and asked Bede for more details.

Certainly in court you are allowed to cite a case by reference without having to repeat its arguments - your opponent knows where to look it up. And when the opposing lawyer argues something by reference to a well known Supreme Court opinion, you can't just stand there and pretend you're too busy to read it yourself.
I don't follow this argument - who is this pagan you are referring to? There was a lot of syncretism at the time - lots of Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles who awere interested in Jewish practice. Do you dispute this?

And Doherty has not dealt with your question, if I understand it. His argument is structured very differently.

His argument starts with the idea that the early Christians held a Platonic view of reality, in which there was a higher spiritual plane of reality. He argues that Paul's references to Jesus referred to Jesus's existence on that higher plane. Do you have any response to that, or do you concede the point?

"I made an attempt to start a dialogue and get beyond name calling, and this is what I get. I said that I thought Doherty had dealt with some objections which Bede had referred to, and asked Bede for more details"

What dialouge Toto? You just casually just asserted that everything I quoted from Paul which explicitly refers to the human Jesus, his birth, his teachings, and his death, and bodily resurrection, was nothing more than Platonic thought.

You did not discuss this point, you simply asserted it. You do not even quote Doherty or demonstrate that he had responded to these exact verses, you just asserted it.

That is not a discussion, Toto.

And when I point out that Paul was employing Jewish eschatogoligical language which presumes God's invervention on this earth and in this reality, you respond with:

"Do you have any response to that, or do you concede the point?"

Toto. You did not give me anything to respond to but a conclusory assertion. No discussion to back it up. Nevertheless I responded and pointed out that since Paul speaks about Jesus on many occasions using Jewish eschatological speech, including his birth "by the flesh," "of the seed of David," and "by a woman" he is clearly describing events in this reality.

And a word on doing things in court. You would never just tell a Judge, "Oh, your honor, its in Smith v. Jones." Read it and you will understand. You better be ready to defend your reading of the reference and know it inside out.


[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 18, 2001).]

Why would a pagan emmerse himself in Jewish customs, employ the language of Jewish eschatology which holds the firm conviction that God's intervention will be earthly, and then try and convince people join his mystery cult which actually believed in a purely spiritual mystery figure unconcerned with his historical reality?

Dunno, Layman. But you can read an exact account of that in God's Chinese Son (referenced earlier in the thread), about Hong Xiuquan, a pagan from the get-go, who did exactly what you describe, and got millions to die for him, too. As a poor preacher, exactly like Paul, he wandered across Guangdong, preaching his eschatology that he got from Christianity, founding his sect of God-Worshippers....and then put on his Muhammed hat when he got persecuted, and started a war.

If you don't like that, Christianity entered Korea even before western missionaries arrived, carried by Christian Japanese soldiers who attacked the country in the late 16th century. Not many of 'em, and they had little effect, but they witnessed for a foreign religion, didn't they?

Or you could look at Paul in the light of the Krishnas at airports. After all, how historic is Krishna?

Or weirdest of all, the Icelanders became Christian by vote, and the pagan chiefs, who also priests in the old order, voted themselves out of their roles (of course, it is a little more complex than that, but still....)

Now that's a lot weirder than Paul, eh?

Perhaps the most amazing thing is that you guys seem to feel that such questions constitute arguments, or that there is really something unusual in what Paul did. The reality is that history affords other examples of what you describe. Why do people do these contradictory, unexplainable, and uncommonsensical things? I have no idea. But they do, and in great numbers, too.

Michael

Wow. I'll recycle that next time you try to impress me with your list of biased buddies like Meier.

You missed my point, Mike. In fact, you distorted it and oversimplied it in an attempt to cram it into your supposed comparisons.

I did not say that a foreigner couldn't teach or accept a foreign religion. I'm saying that a pagan would be frustrating his own purposes if he immersed himself into Judaism and especially Jewish eschatological thought and then used it to attempt to describe a saviour who was entirely mythical.

I pointed out that Paul express himself in a way which clearly implied a human Jesus. Toto asserted that Paul didn't really mean that Jesus was born "according to the flesh" or that he was "born of a woman." Rather, what Paul was employing platonic thought.

Despite the fact that Toto failed utterly to support his assertion, I responded that Paul's phraseology in many of these referenecs are Jewish eschatology which clearly envisioned a God who would act in this world.

This goes far beyond just having a foreigner teach a foreign religion. This isn't about someone's race or even background. It has to do with what they are saying and how they are choosing to articulate their concepts. Paul used words that clearly state Jesus was born of a woman. Jesus came in the flesh. But, moreover, he uses comparisons, emphasis, and other language clearly derived from Jewish eschatology.

And what is hilarious is that Paul's borrowing works TOO WELL, darn it. Alas, all of his disciples misunderstood him and thought he actually meant a human Jesus! Why would they do that? Because he was clear what he meant.

Now you come along and say this has happened before. Okay, where?

And showing that some wierd things have happened before is very inadequate, Turton. Showing that something is conceivable, although EXTREMELY unlikely, is not evidence for your position. It just means you have a lot of time on your hands and no actual evidence to support your position.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 18, 2001).]

Toto

OK Layman - here are a few quotes, showing that Doherty addresses your concerns. Care to comment? You can follow the links.

http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/preamble.htm
http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/parttwo.htm
[This message has been edited by Toto (edited April 18, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Toto (edited April 18, 2001).]

Wow. Another recyclable quote.

Except your version usually starts out, "The vast majority of modern historians have concluded that ABC did in fact happen/exist...."