aa5874

The word 'veracity' in the Lexicon Dictionary means 'the quality of telling the truth, the quality of being true or something truthful'.

Paul's conversion story is of major importance in relation to Christianity and if the conversion was indeed fictitious then Paul was a fraud and his historicity must be questioned.

There is no known extra-biblical case of a Christian conversion where the convert is blinded by Jesus from heaven.
How is it possible for Paul to know he was actually talking to Jesus, in heaven, from earth? And what type scales or covering fell off of Paul's eyes so that he could see?

The veracity of the Christian Bible is suspect. Paul's conversion is outrageous, it appears to be fictitious. Do you have any extra-biblical evidence to show Paul indeed really lived. Did Josephus or Tacitus write about this important figure? I need extra-biblical evidence.

dongiovanni1976x

All that is necessary is that Paul believed he had a vision in order for him to report it and believe that he was telling the truth. The objective truth of this event need not matter at this time. Everything else you said is irrelevant. What difference does it make what Paul saw or if he just had a bad spill off his horse and was given some bad wine to make him feel better and he was tripping on the spoiled grapes yada yada yada...you are barking up the wrong tree...all we are investigating is whether James had a brother named Jesus, not if Paul REALLY talked to him in the sky and was blinded. Besides when did Paul say he was blinded? You seem to be using Luke/Acts, a source you have already discredited, in order to discredit Paul...can't you see all the holes you keep pluggin inorder to keep your MJ position afloat? Why can't you see a real person as the inspiration to all the myth?

Sparrow

Good, then let’s stipulate that they’re false. Now knowing that many parts of the NT are false, how do you figure out how much of the rest is false?

Try Plato or King Arthur or Robin Hood or William Shakespeare. Why is saying ‘we’re not sure’ so horrible?

Maybe you need to reread this to get it, that certainly isn’t what I said. In my opinion, a reasonable historian would say that we cannot be sure whether Jesus was historical or not. There are problems to explain if there were no such person and there are also problems to explain if there was. Now for the part you didn’t get: If we somehow got ironclad evidence that there was a historical entity, that wouldn’t automatically make the rest of the NT true and accurate. This is , however, the tacit assumption of many Christians – find a historical Jesus and their theology is correct.

Depends on what claims you make about the historical figure. As far as I know, Alexander the Great died once and stayed dead. What’s your position on the Jesus fellow?

Again, that’s not what I said. Where did I imply that?

And so what if they become ahistorical when we apply realistic criteria? Maybe we can cozy up a little closer to reality instead of living in fantasyland. And What I offered was not a criteria as much as an example. We’ve all seen the biblical evidence. We know about Josephus and Tacitus and Suetonius and all the rest. We don’t find that convincing. You apparently do. Fine.

I would like for you to “create a criteria that you cannot fulfill to make sure you don't exist”. That would be a cool new experience for me. I can hardly wait. Thanks in advance by the way since I won’t be able to thank you afterwards.

I didn’t offer it as a criteria. Real historians look at the evidence in each case and make a judgement.

I fully agree. I may be wrong, but you seem to be missing the point. If we realized tomorrow that all these figures were not real, the sun would still shine and I’d still have to go to work. Which is why I don’t get worked up over whether any of these figures were historical or not. You apparently do. Perhaps you think there is more at stake than I.

aa5874

Where is your extra-biblical evidence of the historicity of Jesus? Where are your 'professional historians' with their evidence against a Mythical Jesus? You have totally failed to support your position. Possibilities and speculation will not cut it. Your hit-and-run comments are useless.

jgibson000

Shakespeare?? I think you are confusing the question of whether Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him with a question of his existence. Even those who say no to the former, answer yes to the latter. Indeed it is a vital part of their argument against the authorship of Shakespeare's plays by William Shakespeare of Warrickshire and player within the Lord Chambelain's men that this particular William Shakespeare most certainly existed.

Jeffrey Gibson

dongiovanni1976x

This seems to go to the heart of the disagreement in this thread.

Sparrow

No, but over time the number of epistles alleged to have been writtne by Paul has shrunk. Considering the beliefs in the fourth century regarding the authorship of these, we rightly wonder when, by whom and how many people were involved. Considering those that we now believe to be authenticly Pauline, they represent about all we know of Paul. If he were lying or perpetrating a hoax, how would we know?

We would assume the letter writer was real, but not necessarily the subject of his letter.


Yes, we have no writings from Jesus, so he's not really like your soldier letter writer. But there were literate people around who did write about messiah figures early in the first century. How come none of them mentions Jesus?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Q is generally postulated as the source of the material common to Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark. That Mark may have been unaware of Paul's writing is I suppose possible.

There have been recent discussions here about whether 'Brother of the Lord' as Paul wrote it meant a biological brother or just a theological connection. Josephus writes late enough that he could be reporting only what others claim. It seems clear to me that Josephus attests to the stories more than to the truth of the stories.

I'm not as certain as you. If Jesus were famous enough by the end of the first century that Josephus could write what he supposedly wrote, then why the silences in the first half of the century when other messiahs are getting press?.

Sparrow

Well you're a better historian than I'll ever be and I'm also a time zone ahead of you (Yawn). I will admit that I have always been confused about Shakepeare and I don't see that changing much in the future. But the point goes back to the many figures and stories in history for which we cannot be sure of the facts. Sometimes we pick a side and state our reservations. Sometimes it's best to say we don't know. Even your correction of my error shows a dispute of a historical 'fact' - the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.

dongiovanni1976x

We can postulate thousands of what if scenarios but all we are interested here is what is more probable.
Perfect- I completely agree.

Josephus is likely the one Luke is coping from when mentioning Theudas and the Egyptian and Josephus may mention Jesus as well. But how many sources do we really have for all these messianic figures? How many can you name?
Initially I brought it up to show that Mark and Paul are likely independent to someone who respected Earl Doherty so I quoted Mr. Doherty:
In other words, all I was attempting to do was show that even Mr. Doherty seems to agree that Mark and Paul are independent of one another- nothing more.

But what assumptions are you holding when this is made “clear” to you? Are you suggesting that the Jewish priest did not abuse his power and unlawfully put James to death?
How many events do you think happened in the provinces around the empire between 20 and 40 CE? In an empire with 50-60+ million inhabitants how many historians do we get to chose from that recorded these events. Josephus, if he indeed wrote what is attributed him, is a specialized historian referring to Jewish events. Mind you that Philo is as well but is more of a philosopher than an historian so we would be less inclined to find historical evidence in his writings.

All I can say is that when Josephus records that James was put to death there does not seem to be a great deal of evidence that this passage was interpolated. Therefore there is no reason to make excuses for it being so unless we have good reason. Additionally, Paul’s biases are evident in his writings about his authority as an apostle but it is highly unlikely that he was lying about James being Jesus’ brother and it is a stretch to assume that this is just a theological connection as it would be common to address Jesus with such respect. Therefore there is no reason to make excuses for this unless we have good reasons. Mark, being very likely independent of Paul gives more evidence to the fact that James was the brother of Jesus and his biases are more about the power of Jesus and his great works and seems the most arrianistic of all the gospels which lends more credibility to a real human Jesus. Finally Tacitus seems to coldly give a pagan perspective much later but not mentioning James, his reference is just more weight to this trio of corroborating literary sources that suggest that is more probable that Jesus was a real man than that he never existed at all.

aa5874

You've got to be joking. Truth does not matter. What planet are you from? It is hypocritical of you to criticise my position if truth does not count. This discussion is getting bizarre.