Minimalist

I apologize if you are not a christian. I'm new here and tend to operate on the "if-it-walks-like-a-duck-and-quacks-like-a-duck...chances-are-its-a-duck" theory. It does not always work.

Anyway, in general I think religious documents are not written to be historical records and it is a disservice to them to try to force them into that mold. What I am saying is that we seem to have a lack of non-religious material dating from the early first century which shows any awareness of Jesus, in particular or christians, in general. Philo wrote a whole paragraph about what a miserable bastard was Pontius Pilate without mentioning him killing someone who "multitudes" allegedly hailed as the Messiah. Even if, as has been argued, Philo approved of Jesus being killed, the fact is that he was denouncing Pilate and to have someone whom Pilate had killed come back from the dead would seem to be surest sign of 'divine disavowal' of Pilate's action. Why pass up such a story?

Two gospels claim a Nativity story but they disagree by 10 years, minimum on when it happened.

The same two gospels state that it was the arrest of John the Baptist which triggered Jesus' ministry...but then Luke ties it to an event ( the death of Phillip of Iturea and subsequent marraige of ANtipas and Phillip's widow.) Phillip did not die until 34AD. Yet I have seen christian fundies claim that the crucifixion took place in 30AD. In Luke's chronology, Jesus would have been less than 24 years old. We know that it had to take place before Passover of 36 because Pilate was recalled to Rome in 36. And still, they proclaim that every word in the bible is literally true so the contradictions are not contradictions, at all. Well, they can no longer enforce their doctrine by burning people at the stake.

I mean, if the proponents of an argument cannot get their story straight why is it incumbent on anyone to believe them? What then follows is the inevitable question: WHY can't they get their story straight?

Clivedurdle

Have you read it?

GakuseiDon

Hi Dog-on. Though I'd prefer a formal debate to concentrate on those 3 specific topics (to avoid fracturing the debate by trying to match with the Gospels, etc), if you want to do this here (and I suppose this is the "HJ, lay your cards on the table" thread so it is appropriate), I'll start off with the evidence for "(3) Paul believed that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem".

Dog-on, these are the verses that appear to connect Jesus with Jerusalem:

First, Paul says that "Christ crucified" is a stumbling block:

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness

Then, he quotes scriptures to say that the stumbling block was in Zion (Jerusalem):

Rom 9:32 For they [Israel] stumbled at that stumbling stone.
Rom 9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame".

Next, he quotes scriptures to say that the Deliverer will come out of Zion, in terms of a new covenant. This strongly identifies the "Deliverer" with Jesus:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Rom 11:27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins".

Finally, in Galatians 4:4 Paul implies that Jesus was Jewish ("born under the law"), and in 1 Cor 5:7 Paul says "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed." The Passover celebration was held in Jerusalem.

Putting all of these together, I think the best reading of this is that Paul believed that Jesus was Jewish and was crucified in Jerusalem.

What are the alternatives?
(1) Someone suggested that Paul was talking about the Heavenly Jerusalem. But for this reading to be valid, it would have to mean that Satan actually entered the Heavenly Jerusalem and crucified Jesus there, which seems very unlikely. At least, I've never seen anyone present evidence of such. Satan is the god of "this world" -- the Heavenly Jerusalem is not part of this world.
(2) Someone else mentioned that Paul got the information from scriptures, therefore it isn't historical. Even if true, this is only one leg of three. It doesn't avoid the implication that Paul seems to believe that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.
(3) Could it be allegorical? The context doesn't seem to support it. Paul clearly believes that Jesus was crucified and was a deliverer. The context doesn't support an allegorical interpretation in those passages above.

I think that the most natural reading is that Paul believed that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. (As I said, at this stage I just want to concentrate on Paul's letters. I don't care whether this matches the Gospels or other letters or not). What do you think?

Chris Weimer

Yes, of course, except I don't believe in God, therefore I don't fucking quack like a duck. If you'd like to familarize yourself with my actual positions before setting up a strawman, that'd be very appreciated. How fair would it be if a Christian called you an Satanist who sacrifices children? You'd be outraged! (at least, I would).

But that doesn't mean that there isn't an historical record found in those religious documents.

And that means what, exactly? You are operating on what I call the "gospel" mindset. You're not working within an historical paradigm, but take for assumptions certain things which are for many Christians (especially strict literalists) "gospel truth" but have little relation to reality.

I'll comment on that in one second.

This is what I mean - you take the gospels as "literal, gospel truth" and of course you can knock it down. That's not hard. Scholarship had moved on from such pettiness hundreds of years ago. During the 18th century, scholarship first moved into denying the divinity of Jesus, and finding explanations for the miracles. Afterwards, it moved into describing everything as "myth". In modern scholarship, there are the types of higher criticism - form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, supported by lower criticism - i.e. textual criticism.

When seen in this view, the Gospels and Acts aren't reliable enough to support their statement that "multitudes" hailed Jesus as the messiah - whatever group may have thought him to be the messiah must have been small enough to escape notice. That's not a problem. With that reduction, does it seem more probable? Overwhelmingly yes. Paul, their central authority at the start of orthodoxy, didn't start writing to at least the 50's. That's almost two decades or so after his crucifixion. And if Jesus was like any of the other messiah-claimants that Josephus describes, he probably was thought to be a kook by the elite, and dangerous enough to be quelled. Does it work? Yes. It fits the evidence.

But does Mark or Paul, our earliest sources, mention a nativity? Not at all. Do the nativity scences agree anywhere? Yes (though not where you'd expect), but not at the the crucial points. They're both, having been examined, not likely to be true at all.

Um, what? I mean, it's thousands of years out of my area of expertise, but...ah, nevermind. Dude, read a book.

Did Caesar, upon seeing Brutus, cover his head with his toga and say nothing, or did he say, και συ, τεκνον? Or perhaps we should go with Shakespeare and think that he said, "et tu, Brute?"

I mean, three sources and they all say something different. Who to believe?

aa5874

But he still cannot resolve the historicity of Jesus. He hallucinated, if you are correct.

aa5874

How about 1.00% accuracy?

spamandham

I really don't find Paul terribly compelling.

He admits to having 'visions' (aka hallucinations), admits to having been thought insane by his peers, and claims to be the chosen one revealing a mystery long hidden in the Jewish scriptures. Huh? What secret? Didn't Jesus die just 20 years earlier, Paul?

I can see the argument that Paul thought Jesus was both a historical person and a heavenly being.

I can also see the argument that Paul was using figurative language when he made statements that place Jesus on earth, and that Paul's Jesus was strictly a heavenly being.

I can see the argument that Paul had a messiah complex and was referring to himself when he discusses Jesus in the earthly realm.

I can also see the argument that Paul was just a nut making crap up, and other desparate/gullible people followed him, eventually forming what we know as Christianity.

I have no idea which of these, if any, most represents actual history, as all seem more or less equally plausible to me.

mountainman

Try this for size S&H:

Can you see the argument that Paul was a thread
in the fabrication of the Galilaeans - a fiction of men
composed by wickedness. ---- historically ----
in the fourth century, under a malevolent despot
who has yet to be brought to account for his actions.

Actual "christain history" appears by the evidence alone
to have commenced with effect from no earlier that the
fourth century. Send a citation to me if you think I am
mistaken in this assertion.

Peace.

andrewcriddle

I've been trying to investige the inscription.

Archaeologists at Caesarea have discovered several fragments in Hebrew apparently from an inscription giving the locations of the priestly courses. The best preserved is the one that mentions Nazareth. It was discovered in 1961.

The archaeologists involved regarded these fragments as being from the earliest synagogue in Caesarea. The demolition of this synagogue is reasonably solidly dated on the evidence of coins to 355-360 CE. The inscription must obviously have been set up some time before the synagogue was demolished and probably dates to the founding of the synagogue a generation or so before. If this explanation of the discoveries is correct then the original inscription can really be no later than 320 CE.

If this explanation (highly plausible IMO but based on circumstantial evidence) is wrong then the inscription could well be later.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

I cannot find Paul outside Biblical writings.

Whatever a person dreams is a secret. Only the dreamer can reveal it.