ApostateAbe

I am reading a book right now titled, Jesus Outside the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Robert E. Van Voorst, and it is centered around the arguments for and against the historical existence of Jesus. It turns out that the mythical-Jesus position is over 200 years old--Bruno Bauer 100 years ago was only the man who revived it--and scholars take it as a position that has ago been refuted. It is sort of like what young-Earth creationism is to the theory of evolution. If the evidence is squarely against it, there is no need to keep coming back to it. I don't mean the comparison to be insulting--I mean only to make a point (sorry, it is difficult to not be insulting as I explained already). Because of the popularity of MJ, especially on the Internet (Voorst makes a point of Internet arguments in his preface), this is a much-needed book to express the scholarly arguments on the subject. I recommend it.

dog-on

Could you present some of those scholarly arguments here?

ApostateAbe

Certainly, although this isn't the appropriate thread to do it. I have noticed that at least some of Voorst's arguments match the ones I formed on my own and presented in this forum, such as counters against the MJ argument that "James, the Lord's brother" is only a brother in the sense of a religious brotherhood (the name was common and the title was meant to be an identifier).

show_no_mercy

Did Voorst deal with the argument that this offending verse is an interpolation? It's not in Marcion's version.

Toto

:banghead:

With all due respect, you are just displaying your own ignorance of both creationism and the historical Jesus. And you seem to have missed the last decade of debate on this forum.

Van Voorst is a pastor and a professor of NT studies, and the book was apparently written for seminarians. He is not a historian. He just rehashes the same old arguments that have been deconstructed and demolished here and elsewhere so often.

Ktotwf

Apparently quite a bit of "demolishing" and "annihilation" and other violent things tend to happen in HJ-MJ arguments.

ApostateAbe

Toto, I was around this forum for only the last half-decade or so, my apologies. Whatever the person of Van Voorst may be, the arguments themselves are what matter most. It is unlikely that Van Voorst would believe as I do (that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic cult leader), and that is unfortunate, but the arguments I have seen in the book so far seem secular enough. Miracles and what-not are not taken seriously. It seems to be the best book written on the subject. If you have a recommendation for another book, that would be great.

ApostateAbe

Not that I know about, but I think that is the sort of thing you can think about on your own. Marcion's version of Galatians was sourced from Paul's letter, and Marcion had his own agenda--he believed that Jesus was a phantom who is unlikely to have had siblings. The passage in Paul does not fit the patterns of interpolation. It is something mentioned in passing, as though it had little relevance.

aa5874

Your post is a perfect example of people promoting their imagination as historical facts.

Please first show that Jesus did actually exist before you assert he was made a myth by Christianity.

And please explain why Christianity would destroy the historicity of Jesus and then depend upon forgeries to re-historicise the very character whose supposed history they destroyed?

But, it is not true at all there is very little data to support the MJ position when it is the VERY DATA presented in hundreds of documents of about Jesus that have caused people to conclude that Jesus was a MYTH.

This is a partial list of sources that describe Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected, and ascended through the clouds.

1. The Gospels.
2. Acts of the Apostles.
3. The Epistles.
4. Revelations.
5. Writings under the name Ignatius.
6. Writings under the name Clement of Rome.
7. Writings under the name Clement of Alexandria.
8. Writings under the name Justin Martyr.
9. Writings under the name Irenaeus
10. Writings under the name Tertullian.
11. Writings under the name Origen.
12. Writings under the name Eusebius.
13. Writings under the name Jerome.
14. Writings under the name Chrysostom.

I have given some of those sources of antiquity that clearly describe Jesus of the NT as a MYTH.

Now, please give a list of the documents from antiquity that clearly show Jesus of the NT was just a man.

And please do so without any insults if you can.

show_no_mercy

And the Catholics who presented "the originals" didn't? Do you know of any "orthodox" Christians who were aware of Galatians before Marcion?