Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 03-27-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Of course, G.A. Wells is agnostic (which I think is the only real position one can honestly have on this question. We just weigh what we think is the strongest case. I think the mythicist case is at least as strong as the historicist case.)

The bolded text is infuriating. It has nothing to do with history at all. The historicity of Jesus has nothing to do with anything other than the evidence available that reflect on his being accepted as having existed. This is not a horse race. If it were, the race would have but one horse and the challenge is for it to get home.

If one is going to attempt to answer the question "did Jesus exist", there are only three possibilities, "yes", "no" and "can't say". To get a "yes", one has sufficient evidence to say so.

There is almost no mythicist case. It requires knowledge that is not available to us, for christian traditions appear already formed when they first appear in literature. If there were a mythicist origin, it would have happened before the first literature, which places Jesus walking around in a specific time, that of Herod Antipas.

We know that once a figure enters traditions s/he is reflected upon and expanded upon by the traditions' community. It doesn't matter if that figure was real or not. The mythicist cause seems to hit a wall: it can't get any further back than the earliest Jesus traditions which in themselves don't support a mythicist approach.

Mythicism is argued for on its own merits and, as the evidence stands, it remains unsupported. Historicity is argued on its merits and we arrive at a similar conclusion. The tradition is a bit like the Blob (Steve McQueen fans?): it absorbs everything, so you cannot say from its current state what it was first like. If that makes sense, then you call yourself agnostic. If you want to mumble about the evidence that we all have seen, you're a punter and I can suggest a good nag in the fourth on Friday.

My main evidence of what early Christians believed in is from Paul. Paul is our earliest and best evidence. Paul does not place Jesus in any specific time. That's the problem and it turns the "Jesus to Christ" hypothesis on its head.

blastula · 03-27-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

He doesn't claim there are Aramaic documents, tanya, he claims that Aramaic words in Mark show an Aramaic oral source.

Yes, but he cites this as though nobody would tell fiction in Aramaic.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-27-2012, 08:21 PM

If it was an Aramaic fiction, it still had to have had an Aramaic (meaning pre-Markan) source.

spin · 03-27-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

My main evidence of what early Christians believed in is from Paul. Paul is our earliest and best evidence. Paul does not place Jesus in any specific time. That's the problem and it turns the "Jesus to Christ" hypothesis on its head.

Paul saw his savior as human, a Jew and thus under the law, for how could Jesus be suitable as a sacrifice for those who have broken the law if he were not able to break the law himself? What would "without sin" mean if one wasn't human or under the law?

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-27-2012, 08:22 PM

Paul also said he met Jesus' brother. If nothing else, I think Ehrman once and for all convinced me of that.

spin · 03-27-2012, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Does Paul or any other epistle writer style the crucifixion of their Christ Jesus as something that was “against messianic interests”?

Paul does, yes, 1 Corinthians 1:23.

"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"

The "we" would be christians, so this verse is not a relevant response, is it?

EarlDoherty · 03-27-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty
Does Ehrman really believe that his Jesus as apocalyptic prophet could have prophesied his own return as a divine judge? Does he ignore another strong thread of mainstream scholarly interpretation which sees the four “words of the Lord” put forward by Paul as personal revelations he has received from Christ in heaven?)

(A clarification: the revelation is of christ, not from christ. It is from god, who revealed his son to* Paul, Gal 1:15-16.)

Yes, in the case of Gal 1:15-16. But not in the four passages referred to as "words of the Lord", incl. in 1 Thess. 4. In all these it is clearly a revelation or personal communication from Christ himself, not from God about Christ. Those scholars (like Bultmann, for example) subscribing to the "dominical sayings" theory from the "Risen Christ" do not interpret it that way. If you claim otherwise, please supply references.

Bultmann says (History of the Synoptic Tradition, p.127):

Quote:

The Church drew no distinction between such utterances by Christian prophets and the sayings of Jesus in the tradition, for the reason that even the dominical sayings in the tradition were not the pronouncements of past authority, but sayings of the risen Lord, who is always a contemporary for the Church.

To which I remarked (JNGNM, n.15): "This common type of rationalization, that the early Church did not differentiate between the words orf the Risen Lord and the teachings of Jesus on earth, simply masks the fact that the idea of the latter nowhere appears in the early record."

spin · 03-27-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Paul also said he met Jesus' brother.

Oh, no he doesn't. That's certainly the apologetic understanding, but Paul actually says that he met "James, the brother of the lord". Why would Paul suddenly start using ο κυριος ("the lord") as a substitute for "Jesus"? Paul's cultural heritage is one in which "the lord" was a reference to god. The use of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus is certainly attested later in christian tradition.

blastula · 03-27-2012, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If it was an Aramaic fiction, it still had to have had an Aramaic (meaning pre-Markan) source.

And? Is anyone arguing that Mark has to be the original myth-maker?

aa5874 · 03-27-2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

My main evidence of what early Christians believed in is from Paul. Paul is our earliest and best evidence. Paul does not place Jesus in any specific time. That's the problem and it turns the "Jesus to Christ" hypothesis on its head.

Again, you are making Presumptions that are NOT found to be historically accurate. You are committing grave errors when you FIRST presume.

It can be shown by logical deduction that the earliest Jesus story in gMark is before the Pauline letters were composed.

The Pauline doctrine of Universal Salvation through the Resurrection is AFTER gMark was written.

You are really no different to those who have FAITH without a shred of evidence.

Once you understand that Paul claimed he was a persecutor of the Faith and that there were people in Christ Before him then the Jesus story or Jesus himself was KNOWN before Paul wrote his letters.

These are basic logical deductions.

If Paul was a persecuotor of the FAITH and there were people in Christ before Paul then:

1. Jesus Christ was known before Paul wrote his letters

2. Stories about Jesus Christ was known before Paul wrote his letters.

3. People preached Christ Crucified before Paul wrote his letters.

4. People in Christ were Persecuted before Paul wrote his letters.

Now, let us continue with more basic logical deductions.

If there were people who Believed Jesus was crucified BEFORE Paul wrote his letters then there are TWO fundamental position.

1. Jesus Christ did actually exist and was crucified.

2. There were ONLY stories that Jesus was crucified.

All that is now necessary is to determine if the Pauline Jesus was human.

We SIMPLY have to examine the Pauline writings with Apologetic sources to understand if the Pauline Jesus was Divine or solely human.

Galatians 1 show that the Pauline Jesus was NOT a human. The Pauline Jesus was the Son of God.

Jesus of the NT did NOT exist and the Pauline letters of Universal Salvation by the resurrection is AFTER gMark was composed.

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

03-27-2012, 08:21 PM	#53
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	If it was an Aramaic fiction, it still had to have had an Aramaic (meaning pre-Markan) source.

03-27-2012, 08:22 PM	#55
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Paul also said he met Jesus' brother. If nothing else, I think Ehrman once and for all convinced me of that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.