ApostateAbe

I don't want the lines of argument to branch out variously all over the place, so let's just focus on this point, Toto, because it is important to me. I am sorry that I implied that the non-existence of King Arthur was the established position. We can just settle on a hypothetical that there is an even division within scholarly circles about whether or not King Arthur actually existed--the actual positions are not important. There is discovered evidence that Lancelot and Guenevere, with few details but resembling the characters in the myths, actually existed. I propose that the partisans who believe that King Arthur also existed now have the strong upper hand. And, this would be analogous Jesus and his core disciples. Do you agree or disagree? You said my argument makes no sense, but I think it makes at least some sense. Does it make sense that the pro-King-Arthur partisans would have the upper hand? Does the analogy to this situation in Christian history make sense?

Clivedurdle

I thought the bewitchers were accepted as celts.

Toto

You miss the point completely. There is no such division, because no one feels compelled to take a position on an issue with insufficient evidence. But if there were such an ideological dispute, I can't imagine how discovering actual evidence for two historical characters would make the existence of a third more likely. In fact, one might wonder why no actual evidence for Arthur had survived, if evidence for two less significant characters had survived. This might be the right analogy - proving the existence of Peter makes the existence of Jesus less likely - if you have to use that lame analogy at all.

ApostateAbe

OK, thanks, Toto. You are agreeing to play my game of using my modernist methodology of choosing positions in history--I choose them based on the greatest relative probability--though you would prefer to stick to refraining from any position since there is insufficient evidence all around. I get it, and I won't misunderstand you if you propose that one position seems better from my outlook, not your outlook. Do you really think that Paul's report of the existence of Peter means less evidence for Jesus, not greater, from such a perspective? I rebut that writers in that time and place were scarce. They required wealth, education and a necessity to write. Do you agree?

Toto

No, I'm not.

I dispute this

This is the modernist position. :huh:

I can't trust you not to misunderstand me...

I don't agree, if I understand you, which I can't be sure of. You say that writiers of that time and place required wealth, education, etc. - where does that leave Paul? Why did he document the existence of Peter, James, and John but felt no need to mention the historical Jesus?

I'm finding this conversation completely unproductive.

ApostateAbe

I am sorry you are finding this conversation completely unproductive. Feel free to withdraw at any time, and I won't hold it against you. Just to clarify, I was asking you whether or not you agree with me on the point that writers of the time and place were scarce. If you agree, then you don't necessarily have to accept that as an excuse for why no direct witnesses mention the historical Jesus, but that would be my rebuttal all the same. If you disagree, then do you think writers were plentiful enough that they would be likely to see Jesus and write about Jesus if he existed as a crucified cult leader? Paul does mention the historical Jesus a handful of times, as you are aware, but he was not a direct witness, which can hardly be helped if he converted to the religion after the death of Jesus.

aa5874

It is not true that Paul mentioned an historical Jesus since the PAULINE Jesus was raised from the DEAD and was the Creator of heaven and Earth.

The Pauline Jesus was a God/man who ascended to heaven and was EXPECTED to return a SECOND time..

Col 1:16 - Ga 1:1 - The Pauline writers did NOT mention an historical JESUS at all.

Toto

They were scarce compared to today's literate society, but there were historians and writers.

As has been discussed ad nauseum, there were writers who might have mentioned something about Jesus or his movement or his followers if he existed.

It can be helped. Paul could have seen Jesus - if the standard timeline is correct, he was around when Jesus was preaching and when he was crucified. Or, he could have learned about the historical Jesus from people who did know Jesus and he could have written about what they told him. He could have explained why he felt himself more qualified to represent Jesus than people who actually knew him. But instead, he had a spiritual visitation and showed no particular curiosity about the earthly Jesus.

andrewcriddle

Since we are discussing Mark and his sources of information, one should note that Mark (without the 16:9-20 addition) contains no acount of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

Hence the question of the source for such accounts does not seem relevant to Mark's Gospel.

Andrew Criddle

ApostateAbe

OK, great. So, within 60 years, there was Paul, the gospel authors and Josephus, each with their own set of doubts, but OK. From the skeptical camp and the mythicist camp, this is not enough. None of them actually saw Jesus, and all accounts are tainted with myth. So, I would like to know your opinion:

• What author would have seen Jesus or would have interviewed people about Jesus?
• Who would have written about him?
• And, would some of their accounts have been preserved through centuries of copying and preservation?

All three of those conditions must be met for us to have first-hand testimony of Jesus. Do you agree on this point?

This point is illustrated by a tidbit of history for what could be the earliest non-Christian testimony to the existence of the Christian religion. Thollus, whom you are familiar with already, was a Greek writer of about the same time as Paul. He reportedly wrote a three-volume work of the Middle Eastern area.

All of that chronicle is now gone. All of it.

But, some of it was quoted by a Christian writer named Sextus Julius Africanus in his third-century History of the World.

All of that book is now gone. All of it.

But, some of it was paraphrased by Georgius Syncellus in Chronicle, 800 CE. Luckily, that book is still with us, and that is our present source for our only potential knowledge of what Thallus wrote about Christianity. But, there are more weaknesses, still. We still don't really know if Thallus ever saw Jesus, and he probably did not. He was only giving a rebuttal to a common Christian myth--he explained the darkness of the resurrection as an eclipse of the Sun, and that is all we know. Further, there may have been a misquote somewhere along the chain, and maybe Thallus said jack shit about Christianity. We just don't know.

I am not trying to make a point about the strength of Thallus' testimony. The point is the scarcity of writing and the scarcity of preservation. Do you really think that the best explanation for why we don't have first-hand citations of Jesus is that he never existed? Maybe the best explanation is that he simply wasn't important enough at the time. If your model for the primary opposition's historical Jesus is the Biblicist gospel Jesus, where He was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, performs miracles all the time and crowds of thousands of people follow Him, then the lack of first-hand testimony is a good objection. If anyone wants to promote a theory of a merely mythical Jesus, then they need to focus on the real competition--the model of a small-time traveling apocalyptic religious leader, the model commonly accepted among the secular scholarship.