TedM

I disagree with Wells on that for the reasons I stated as well as two others: First, Paul references archontes only one time in another 'authentic' epistle: Romans, where it is clear he refers to humans. Second, he says they wouldn't have crucified Jesus if they knew who he was...seems an odd thing to say about dark forces that rule this world, without some kind of explanation. It is not at all odd to say if he was referring to Roman rulers or religious rulers--both men of supposed human wisdom, but lacking the kind of wisdom Paul had been talking about repeatedly in the prior 20+ verses, and then afterward. IMO if that is Doherty's stronger point, his is an even weaker theory than I thought.


I guess I don't know the distinction you are making between a real person and a historical person. If you are referring to the miraculous claims then I will only say that I wasn't including those when I said that parts of GJohn could be historical. Jesus in Gjohn did a lot more than just defy the laws of science.

maryhelena

Basically, the distinction I made deals with evidence for historicity. Without that evidence no claim for historicity can be made. A person can indeed have lived a life - but would not be deemed to be a historical person without historical evidence to demonstrate that fact.

Actually, spin recently had a post dealing with this sort of distinction.

archibald

I think what is being said is that the only good, rational reason for you to think it was the case would surely be evidence of some sort.

What evidence do you have that anyone said or believed he existed while they knew he did not? That is the point.

Sadly, we will never be able to know the correct answer. However, the most rational view is that he likely did exist, if only because of parsimony and objective application of what knowledge we have of numerous minor figures from the very distant past.

MCalavera

In one of the Epistles, James is said to be the brother of the Lord. Doesn't this acknowledge the existence of an actual Jesus?

Toto

Not unequivocally. There has been some discussion of this issue here, but no resolution.

Paul uses the word "brother" typically to refer to a fellow believer, not a biological brother; and uses the term "Lord" to refer to god. There is a Hebrew name that translates "brother of YHWH," so this might have been a title for James, indication that he was the brother of God.

Kapyong

Gday all,

Why do you believe that?
Mythical characters have often been popular.

Also note - Doherty's Paul's spiritual Jesus was NOT "made-up" in the sense that Paul wrote any ol' fictional thing that came into his head. He was a real spiritual being that Paul believed existed, and whose life Paul believed was encoded in scripture. NOT "made up", but evidenced to Paul by vision and scripture.

(It's the same ol' argument that always turns up about JM almost every time -
1. JMT says Jesus is "lies" or "hoax" or "conspiracy" or "made-up".
2. there's NO way it could be a lie, it's ridiculous that it's a conspiracy, it's nonsense that it's a hoax, or now - it's too insulting to be "made-up".
3. therefore Jesus is real!
Sorry if I'm boring people, but if we are going to bother to discuss the JMT
I'd like to get rid of this silly strawman - that it's either ONE of ONLY two possibilities :
* lies, hoax, made-up, conspiracy
* true history.)


So, Christian emotional comfort is more important to you than the historical truth.


So you admire the 9/11 killers?
And you admire suicide bombers?
And you admire the Heaven's Gate cult?
Really?


Well, thanks for being so truthful about it.


Indeed.
It would be a huge shock to many people - and that is why there is such a great resistance to the idea as TedM has shown. The emotional pain would be VAST, so they'd rather not even consider the idea.


Hmmm... someone taking pleasure in the TRUTH about a controversial issue becoming widely known, (even amidst some emtional pain), is a 'dishonourable thing' to you?

Once again you make it clear that support the Christian emotional confort zone is more important that historical fact.


Because the 'avg person' belong to a culture that has ASSUMED and even INSISTED that Jesus existed for nearly two millenia. We are only JUST out of the woods, only a few centuries ago, the church held power of life and death, only decades ago the church and the lcoal priest still held some influence in Western society. Nowadays in my country we only see priests on TV for 3 reasons : 1) child abuse, 2) comedy shows, 3) Easter speeches,


K.

EarlDoherty

But what does this mean? What do you mean by “relevant”? Are you going to say that because there were Jewish zealots who were crucified in history (which I don’t deny) and that this provided some kind of ‘inspiration’ for the Gospel story, this means there was an historical Jesus or an acceptable substitute for him? That would be absurd. Your constant claim to the effect that history has some kind of input in the story of Jesus is saying nothing of any significance. Are you going to say that because there were preachers going about (Jewish and Greek, as the Cynics) announcing the coming Kingdom of God and urging repentance, like John the Baptist (if he existed), and that this sort of preacher provided some kind of ‘inspiration’ for the Gospel story, this means there was an historical Jesus or an acceptable substitute for him? A claim based on this to the effect that history has some kind of input in the story of Jesus is again saying nothing of any significance. There still was NO HISTORICAL JESUS as a specific individual!

Why do you keeping claiming that I am in some way ignoring or denying this ‘dimension of history’? Of course I don’t. Fictional creations tend to be based on familiar concepts in real life, especially if such creations are intended to convey some insight or truth about a life-situation the author moves in. I’ve just finished an historical novel on a sea-captain in the Roman navy; his name is “Atticus.” There is no question that the author, if he did any research at all, based his portrayal on the naval captains of the Roman empire, as far as he could uncover a picture of them. Does this mean there was an historical “Atticus”? If the author denies there was, are you going to accuse him of ‘ignoring history’? If that novel about Atticus gave rise to a religion, would you claim the sort of captain he was based on presents an acceptable and meaningful substitute? You make no sense, maryhelena, which is why I find it so difficult if not impossible to engage you in discussion.

I said this, which you quoted:

You asked if I still uphold this position. Of course I do. It agrees with what I said above. Then you say:

You are the one being nonsensical. The existence of the practice of crucifixion of troublemakers in Judea by the Romans, and this being an ‘inspiration’ for the writer of Mark (and it would only be partial, because an important element of inspiration would have been an imagined crucifixion in heaven of the Son due to interpreting it in scripture, as Paul did), is not equivalent to identifying a specific “relevant historical crucifixion.” Again, without such a specificity, you are saying nothing of significance. There still was NO HISTORICALLY CRUCIFIED JESUS, or of any other identifiable specific individual.

And what is the nature of Wells’ historical non-crucified sage? He is at least clearer on that than you are. He partially follows the precedent of the Jesus Seminar who thought to extract an actual specific historical figure from the root of Q. That’s his “evidence” for him. You don’t believe in Q, as I understand you, so you aren’t able to share Wells’ convictions about a real specific individual. Wells can hardly be, as you put it, offering “more in the psychological stakes” if all he were doing is the same as yourself: oh, there were Jewish preachers and would-be messiahs back in Judea in the first century, some of whom were executed, and this inspired the Gospel character and story.

Would Christians get psychological support from those unidentifiable victims of crucifixion, would they be convinced of their own resurrection from the slaughter by the Romans of Theudas and his followers? Even the Jesus Seminar retained a special godly status, perhaps even a degree of divine character, for its “genuine Jesus” which it believed it found at the root of Q, and I am quite sure they still regarded him as having been crucified, as having had a special preaching inspiration from God, and as having in some way inspired the Christ belief of Paul. Wells, I don’t believe, would subscribe to any of that. He simply admits the likelihood of a specific charismatic preacher who inspired the movement represented in Q. As far as I know, he regards the Christ of Paul as something entirely separate, with no connection to that alleged Q sage, and having no actual basis in history, just a heavenly Son read out of scripture by the likes of Paul and presumed by them to have been incarnated in an unknown historical past.

My disagreements with Wells are two: That last phrase above I reject, substituting instead that Paul and his fellow cultists placed Jesus and his death in the heavens. And I reject his acceptance of a specific historical individual as the founder of the Kingdom preaching movement in Galilee represented in Q, a rejection I have offered an in-depth analysis of Q to demonstrate.

You know what, maryhelena? You are so warm and fuzzy in your postings that it is no wonder one cannot get a clear, firm handle on what you are trying to advocate. If there was no actual “flesh and blood” figure on earth in Paul’s faith, if there was no flesh and blood figure at the root of Q, then that’s it. I still don’t know what “creator’s” substitute you are offering, what alternative “flesh and blood” you are promoting. Yes, the “heartwarming pull of the Gospel Jesus” is undeniable. It is what has kept Christianity going for almost 2000 years. I said in The Jesus Puzzle that

You are right that Paul’s cosmic Christ proved to be cold comfort, which is why the Gospel allegory (as it started out being) was almost immediately seized upon and forcibly interpreted by such as Ignatius as being actual history, the real experiences of a real man. But mythicists like yourself have come to admit that the Gospels are fiction, that the character portrayed was not itself historical. No real comfort there. So what is it you are wanting to replace them with, what new “heartwarming pull” of “flesh and blood”? Some false unknown-past man in Paul’s imaginings (if we are to believe Wells)? Some non-crucified sage at the beginning of Q, no more than the first of a line of Q preachers? Or is it simply the historical fact of the practice of crucifixion, of many who were zealots and would-be messiahs (mostly maniacs and assassins) meeting a violent end? The historical fact of the practice of preaching the coming Kingdom of God in the first century? I acknowledge both of the latter factors as ‘inspiration’ for the Gospel story.

The difference is, I don’t find any of them heartwarming. Nor do I imagine that Christians would in the absence of a real Jesus of Nazareth. And I don’t style them as an “historical basis” for the Gospel character in any meaningful, let alone inspirational or warm and fuzzy, fashion.

So please stop styling me as some kind of “Grinch Who Stole Jesus.” As far as I can see, your substitute (and your articulation of it leaves a lot to be desired) hasn’t much more going for it than coals in a Christmas stocking.

Earl Doherty

Kapyong

Gday,

Hmmm...
Please quote those 90 passage where Paul "references a flesh and blood human Jesus".


K.

MCalavera

I can understand the "no resolution" bit. It's just I find it strange why James, out of all the Apostles, would have such a title if he really wasn't an actual brother of Jesus.

TedM

Sure, but do remember I qualified that by saying they are references that 'sound human'. You may take issue with certain interpretations and could be right, but the basic point remains:


Romans, 16 chapters

* Was a direct descendent of King David, and his father Jesse. 1:3,15:12
* Was in the flesh 1:3,8:3, 9:4-5a
* Shed his blood 3:25, 5:9
* Was put to death 4:25
* Was a man 5:15, 5:17, 5:18, 5:19
* His death was an act of righteousness 5:18
* Was buried 6:4
* Was crucified 6:6
* Had a body 7:4
* Suffered 8:17
* Was of the Jewish race 9:5
* Was a stumbling block to Jews 9:33 Gal 5:11 says the stumbling block is the cross
* The stumbling took place in Zion (Jerusalem) 9:33
* He will come from Zion (Jerusalem) as a deliverer 11:26
* Somehow persuaded Paul that thoughts make things unclean 14:4 possible teaching of Jesus}
* Did not live to please himself, reproached by man 15:3
* Became a servant to the Jews 15:8
* He died. 16 additional verses



1 Corinthians, 16 chapters

* Was crucified 1:13,23, 2:2, 2:8
* Is associated with a cross 1:17,18
* Was crucified according to the flesh by rulers (almost for certain speaking about men) of Paul's age (time) 2:8,
* His death was a "paschal lamb" sacrifice, implying that it happened during Passover Celebration. 5:7
* He expressly forbid divorce. (if Lord applies to him) 7:10
* He had brothers 9:5
* He commanded that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (if Lord applies) 9:14
* He initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup, in the same way as presented in the gospels This is my body which is broken for you.etc. 11:23
* Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. 11:23
* He had a body with blood 11:24,27
* Jesus was buried. 15:4
* He was a man 15:20-21, 15:45, 47,47,49
* He died. 5 additional verses


2 Corinthians, 13 chapters
* He suffered 1:5
* He was sinless 5:21
* He became poor 8:9
* He was meek and gentle 10:1
* He was crucified. 13:4
* He died. 3 additional verses


Galations, 6 chapters
* He had a brother named James, who later became a pillar in the early church. (if Lord applies to him) 1:19
* He was crucified 2:20, 3:1
* He died 2:21
* He fulfilled the OT curse of those hung on a tree 3:13
* He was born in human fashion of a woman 4:4
* He was a Jew 4:4
* He referred to God as his Father using the term "abba". 4:6
* Is associated with a cross 5:11, 6:12,14


Philippians, 4 chapters
* He was in figure as a man, in human form 2:7,8
* He humbled himself 2:8
* He was obedient 2:8
* He died on a cross 2:8
* He suffered 3:10
* He died 3:10


1 Thess, 5 chapters
* Jewish authorities were responsible for Jesus' death. 2:15
* He taught about the end-time. (if Lord applies to him) 4:15
* He died. 3 additional verses


Colossians, 4 chapters
* His blood associated with the cross 1:20
* His body of flesh died 1:22
* In his body dwells deity 2:9
* Nailing associated with the cross 2:14
* He died. 2 additional references

In addition, there are numerous references to Jesus as having been raised from the dead thoughout all of Paul's epistles..