Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 02-20-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

They believed in a historical Jesus as a matter of dogma

...

But you seem to be more interested in showing that they thought like we do

...

An interest in historical details is part of our basic mentality.

...

Why are you spending your time trying to force early Christian writings into you preconceived notions?

Doesn't the above sound like two sides of a debate?

Quote:

Can you find a reson why no one was interested before Constantine - other than that there were no historical details because there was no historical Jesus?

The actual bodily existence of Christ is self-evident from an adequate reading of the NT literature. It is only in recent times that the ability to read adequately has been effectively killed.

Ben C Smith · 02-20-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I suspect that the lack of historical details regarding Jesus in Paul's letters is a major part of what convinces many that there is something to the ahistoricist position.

It seems to be a big deal now whether Jesus existed as an actual person or was a mythic founding figure of Christianity, but it was not the critical issue in the first three centuries of Christianity.

Unless you are redefining words here, you are mistaken. It was a very big deal to the proto-orthodox that Jesus really suffered under Pilate, that he bore real flesh, and that he was really born from the womb of Mary. They insisted on these things against the docetics.

Ben.

No Robots · 02-20-2009, 10:31 AM

It was easy to mock and dismiss the early Christians for worshipping someone who had been crucified. This undoubtedly pushed early proponents from Paul onwards to minimize in their proselytizing the details of Christ's earthly existence, and emphasize instead his cosmic significance.

Toto · 02-20-2009, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It seems to be a big deal now whether Jesus existed as an actual person or was a mythic founding figure of Christianity, but it was not the critical issue in the first three centuries of Christianity.

Unless you are redefining words here, you are mistaken. It was a very big deal to the proto-orthodox that Jesus really suffered under Pilate, that he bore real flesh, and that he was really born from the womb of Mary. They insisted on these things against the docetics.

Ben.

But it was a matter of dogma, and they proved it with Scripture, not with historical witness or artifacts. And this was towards the end of the second century and beyond - after most of the letters on GDon's list were written.

Ben C Smith · 02-20-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But it was a matter of dogma, and they proved it with Scripture, not with historical witness or artifacts.

That is part of his point. They did this both before and well after the gospels were well known.

Quote:

And this was towards the end of the second century - after most of the letters on GDon's list were written.

1. So what? GDon was talking about the time up to the third century, and so were you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto, emphasis added

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon, emphasis added

If ahistoricists were writing up until the Third Century, then why weren't they noticed by the heresiologists like Irenaeus and Tertullian?

Again, there were no "historicists" at this time. Irenaeus was concerned with heretics....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto, emphasis added

It seems to be a big deal now whether Jesus existed as an actual person or was a mythic founding figure of Christianity, but it was not the critical issue in the first three centuries of Christianity.

2. GDon (like Doherty, IIRC) dated Ignatius to early in century II. Ignatius has this flesh of Christ stuff.

Ben.

aa5874 · 02-20-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I can't say for sure why Paul didn't include historical details about Jesus, but I can say that Paul is not unusual in this regard. That's the elephant in the room.

There is no elephant in the room.

HJers are just in denial.

They refuse to accept that there is no historical support for an historical Jesus. And, secondly, continue to deny that even if an historical Jesus did exist that it is virtually impossible to know anything about him except by guessing.

Jayrok · 02-20-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

A third part of the elephant in the room is that of forgery and interpolation. Rlogan wrote on another thread, "Josephus is obviously the highest priority for forgery. It is something they MUST do because it's absence in Josephus' works is the most damning silence". But, if lack of historical details were a concern, then why make entries in Josephus (and Tacitus) but leave works like Paul and the other early letters? Why is the silence so much more meaningful in those pagan works than in early Christian works?

I don't think it was so much the inclusion of historical details as just the idea of simply mentioning Jesus at all. The Epistles mention Jesus all throughout, historical or not.

Josephus provided the Church a non-Christian source to include in literature. And this scenario could actually be evidence that it didn't matter to early Christians if Jesus was considered historical or not... as long as he was mentioned and acknowledged.

As you stated, the lack of historical details were not a concern at the time. The question is why? It could be because Paul's Jesus was not considered an historical figure who recently taught in Caperneum.

aa5874 · 02-20-2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

As you stated, the lack of historical details were not a concern at the time. The question is why? It could be because Paul's Jesus was not considered an historical figure who recently taught in Caperneum.

It was because the writer called Paul was writing long after the Jesus stories were already written and believed to be true.

The writer called Paul was placed in the wrong time zone by the Church.

As can be seen in the letters, the writer is mainly concerned about the resurrection of Jesus, his gospel is directly based on this non-event that was already believed to have occurred.

figuer · 02-20-2009, 11:22 AM

I don't see the issue: Paul (whom did not know Jesus personally, per scripture), wrote some pastoral/theological letters about personal/theological subjects, pertaining a cult to which he had converted. Where is the problem?

Toto · 02-20-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

I don't see the issue: Paul (whom did not know Jesus personally, per scripture), wrote some pastoral/theological letters about personal/theological subjects, pertaining a cult to which he had converted. Where is the problem?

The problem is whether there was a human founding figure of this cult, a recently crucified person named Jesus, in which case we wonder why Paul seems to know nothing about him.

If you don't see a problem, don't worry. But it has been enough of a problem to excite Christian apologists to attempt to provide an explanation.

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

02-20-2009, 10:31 AM	#13
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	It was easy to mock and dismiss the early Christians for worshipping someone who had been crucified. This undoubtedly pushed early proponents from Paul onwards to minimize in their proselytizing the details of Christ's earthly existence, and emphasize instead his cosmic significance.

02-20-2009, 11:22 AM	#19
figuer Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico Posts: 7,984	I don't see the issue: Paul (whom did not know Jesus personally, per scripture), wrote some pastoral/theological letters about personal/theological subjects, pertaining a cult to which he had converted. Where is the problem?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.