Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 12-29-2007, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I won't pretend I don't believe there aren't sinister reasons why people here argue--sometimes in the most twisted and distorted ways--against existence of a historical Jesus. I think many would LOVE for Christians to discover that their "savior" never even walked this earth, revealing to them how dumb they are.

However, I also believe that others here sincerly are convinced by some actual evidence or lack thereof that Jesus probably never did walk this earth. It is to those that I pose this question:

What do you find to be the most compelling reasons to conclude that some preacher named Jesus never lived, never was crucified, and never was considered to have been resurrected by the early believers? A top 2 or three reasons would suffice.

ted

I came very late to this discussion, and haven't read much of the other replies. I hate to just quote a post links, but this topic has been covered many times already.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

Quote:

What is the basis for the claim that "Jesus never existed"?

Actually, there are many important facts that support this conclusion. First let's look at an outline of some of the major points in this case:

* The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it

* The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction

* Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures

* Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures

* Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically

* The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record

* The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life

* Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person

* There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime

* Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea

* All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims

* There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories

* There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh"

* The Catholics made purely theological arguments as to why Jesus Christ had to have existed "in the flesh"

None of these points are meant to stand on their own, but collectively they provide a very strong argument against the story of Jesus Christ being based on a real person.

I'd say that those are the main points IMO.

I do not think that there is any smoking gun, nor will there probably ever be. It is a case built on circumstantial evidence. I don't think that we'll ever be able to without a doubt say that there was absolutely no human guy named Jesus who was integral in the development of the Jesus Christ cult.

I do, however, think that the preponderance of evidence points to a cult that developed based on ideas and not on an actual Jesus person.

aa5874 · 12-29-2007, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I do, however, think that the preponderance of evidence points to a cult that developed based on ideas and not on an actual Jesus person.

And Marcion showed that it could be done easily. He virtually ripped out the heart of the NT's Jesus and reduced him to a phantom, and discarded much of the gospels except parts of Luke and some epistles.

Marcion proved, as early as the 2nd century, that Christianity does not need an actual human to be developed and that the "Pauline Epistles" augmented the concept of the phantom and was very helpful in the propagation of this heavenly creature.

Marcion's phantom is evidence against an historical Jesus.

TedM · 12-29-2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Actually, there are many important facts that support this conclusion. First let's look at an outline of some of the major points in this case:

Hi Malachi. Thanks for posting those reasons. I'd like to start with asking about one of them:

Quote:

* Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person

I can't think of a single one offhand. If you see "many" could you please supply 2 or 3 for me to respond to? Thanks,

ted

Malachi151 · 12-29-2007, 07:32 AM

The easiest thing is probably to just use this link:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#7

Quote:

Philippians 3:
12 Not that I have already obtained this or have already been made perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on towards the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.

17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us. 18 For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. 19 Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. 20 But our commonwealth is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21 He will transform our humble bodies so that it may be conformed to his glorious body, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.

Quote:

Romans 16:
25 Now to the one who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory for ever! Amen.

Quote:

Romans 10:
1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them [the Israelites] is that they may be saved. 2 I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

... 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. 13 For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’ 16 But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message?’ 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word about Christ.

Quote:

Galatians 1:
11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Galatians 3:
1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4 Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

Quote:

Galatians 6:
13 Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. 14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

Quote:

1 Corinthians 2:
6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" — 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?

Quote:

Ephesians 3:
1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— 2 for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, 4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: 6 that is, the Gentiles have become fellow-heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Quote:

Ephesians 4:
7 But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said,

‘When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.’

9 (When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended first into the depths of the earth? 10 He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) 11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. 14 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

Amaleq13 · 12-29-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

You can ridicule me for asking, or you can provide a reference. It's up to you.

I'm not ridiculing you for asking. I'm ridiculing you for making bold assertions about messianic beliefs when you clearly haven't done even the most basic research on the topic.

I've given you all the reference you deserve. The information is ubiquitous and should be included in any general reference on the scrolls. Please don't pretend that this isn't sufficient for anyone genuinely interested in reducing their ignorance.

Quote:

Thank you. I'll look it up when I get an opportunity.

I hope that is true.

Quote:

Of course there is. There is also a significant difference between believing it happened several times because the evidence says it happened several times, and assuming from evidence that it happened once that it must have happened several times.

Why introduce a straw man?

Quote:

And with good reason.

Yes, it is inadequate to deal with such events. You do realize this says more about the method than the event, right?

Quote:

I'm trying to figure out what was likely to have happened, given the evidence that is actually available for examination.

Yes and, once you've done your homework you might be able to do just that.

Quote:

Among other things:

Wow. It is "almost" like you gathered together points that are exclusive to the story of Jesus. Not one of those things is at all relevant to the question of how enormous devotion is established between a leader and his followers. That was the point, remember? I can only hope my follow-up post helps you redirect your focus in a more productive manner.

Quote:

You may accept or not, as you wish, my criteria for sufficient similarity. The lurkers can make up their own minds whether I'm being reasonable.

I certainly reject them as ridiculously and obviously specific to the story of Jesus and entirely missing the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

...it seems obvious to me that he had no interest in mentioning, let alone emphasizing, anything that happened prior to Paul accepting Christ except the bald facts of the crucifixion and resurrection.

Well, yes, it is obvious. So obvious, that it is and always has been one of the key arguments against Jesus' historicity.

The fact that Paul has a reasonable motivation to avoid any such references is "key" to mythicist arguments?

No, the mythicist arguments require one to ignore that there is a clearly viable alternative to their explanation for Paul's silence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Paul very much wanted to be considered just as much an apostle as any of them.

That, too, is obvious.

Yes. I only feel it necessary to point out the obvious to you because you appear to be completely ignoring it in reaching your conclusion.

Quote:

How would his mentioning facts about Jesus' life have undermined that desire?

Don't shift the focus from the specific to the general. We were specifically discussing what made his followers so devoted. I hope that reminding you of the specific claim will make the answer to your question apparent.

Quote:

My conclusion is that the gospels are fiction. Lack of sourcing fits perfectly well with that.

You are switching from specific to general again. Your conclusion was that the Gospels were all attempts at biography but, according to you, lack of sourcing doesn't fit. Understand? You assigned a genre and then complained that they don't meet a fundamental criterion for such a designation.

Quote:

Oh, you're calling that an assumption? I don't think any of my logic teachers would have let me do that.

They haven't taught you about "If, then" statements? The truth of the conclusion is clearly predicated upon assuming the conditional to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

It is also placed in the mouth of Jesus in the subsquent Gospels.

That you're assuming your conclusion.

You aren't making sense. I think you have lost track of our discussion. Perhaps you have too many irons in the fire? Or just grasping at straws? My point about eschatology in the Gospels served only to show that it was not exclusive to Paul and didn't stop with Paul. It really has no bearing on my argument from the assumption that Paul's eschatological beliefs were similar to his Christ-believing contemporaries.

Quote:

The gospels cannot inform us about Paul's thinking without some question-begging about Jesus' historicity.

Good thing I haven't suggested otherwise.

Now, quit playing games and hit the books!! :wave:

mens_sana · 12-29-2007, 12:28 PM

Perhaps my reading comprehension has gone down the drain, but I fail to see how the citations in post 134 support the assertion that

Quote:

Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person

There is a difference between addressing the historicity of Jesus and the "revelation" of Jesus Christ. Paul was really only interested in the latter and in the return of the Christ.
Edited to correct post number.

Malachi151 · 12-29-2007, 01:52 PM

Paul never in fact mentions a "return" of Jesus. This is one of the issues. He mentions a coming of Jesus from heaven, but never once, that I am aware of, does he claim that this is a "second coming" or a "return", etc.

Doug Shaver · 12-29-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I've given you all the reference you deserve.

Well, I guess further discussion between you and me will be pointless.

Amaleq13 · 12-29-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I've given you all the reference you deserve.

Well, I guess further discussion between you and me will be pointless.

I tend to agree. You have a lot of reading to do before any discussion with you on this subject will have a point.

Doug Shaver · 12-29-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Where do you think the modern standards came from? Modern scholars developed them when they realized that ancient standards of historiography were inadequate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

You're avoiding the question.

Your question was "What sort of history? Modern history?" in response to my statement that "The gospels, even if intended as history, are demonstrably unreliable as such."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Please answer the question.

In this context, by "history," I mean an account of past events thought to have actually occurred. Whether the account is modern or ancient is irrelevant to an evaluation of its reliability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

my argument in no way implies that either we believe all of it or we believe none of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Then I assume you have a methodology, right

Yes. A scientifically rational one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

An unknown author relying on unidentifiable sources is suspect from the start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

That seems to me to be an unsupported assertion.

It is supported by the notion that a writer's credibility must be established, not presupposed. Anybody can tell a story. To know whether the story is true, or how much of it is likely to be true, we need to know something about the storyteller and how they got their information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If there was no historical Jesus, then either the gospel authors mistakenly thought there was, or else they were intentionally writing fiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

False dichotomy, one that, I note, excludes Doherty's hypothesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

As I recall, Doherty thinks the gospels are midrash. That is a subset of fiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Argument from Authority fallacy.

It would be, if I were arguing that they were midrash. Your objection implied that my dichotomy would rule out Doherty's hypothesis. I say it would not, and that has nothing to do with whether I agree with Doherty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Do you have any clue as to what midrash is?

Enough to know that it was not meant to be construed as factual history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

I think we can safely ignore your conclusions.

Of course you can. What's the worst that can happen to anyone who disagrees with me?

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

12-29-2007, 01:52 PM	#137
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Paul never in fact mentions a "return" of Jesus. This is one of the issues. He mentions a coming of Jesus from heaven, but never once, that I am aware of, does he claim that this is a "second coming" or a "return", etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.