Gamera

Yep, based on his repeated references to crucifixion, a rather outre way to die that seems pretty much limited to Roman rule; and as Ben just elucidated, the fact that Paul refers to Jesus' borther, James. Generally, nonhistorical people don't have siblings, or at least not ones you can meet on the street.

Gamera

To further support this point, Romans 5 appears to use the "we" to mean himself and his audience, whom Paul takes to have been living at the time of Jesus' death. It's possible he means "All Christians, even those in the future" or "mankind in general," but this is somewhat strained. The primary meaning seems to be we "-- myself and the folks I"m writing to -- " were still sinners at the time prescribed by God as the right time for Jesus to die and be resurrected, thus placing Jesus in a particular historical setting for Paul. Indeed the "still", "yet" and "now," used by Paul seem to indicate Paul is contrasting this generation of Christians with later generations (though for what purpose I can't discern).

Romans 5 - 6 While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man--though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. 8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10

aa5874

Evan, if I were to write a book using the name Evan as the main character who did not do or say anything that can be assigned to you, will you, Evan, say it is historic because it bears your name? Now if there are 30 persons named Evan, is the book still an historic account?

The name Jesus was prevalent in the region, just using a name to make a story is not history. In order for Jesus to be historic certain pertinent data must be obtained. Every single data referring to Jesus is questionable and some flat out false.

I am yet to know which Jesus is historic, because the one described in the Bible is fiction.

Didymus

Compelling, perhaps, but not a slam dunk for historicity. As an isolated instance, it must still be viewed in light of all the other data, including:

-- The absence of geographical reference points in the Pauline epistles. Nowhere does he mention Galilee as the place of Jesus' ministry or Jerusalem as the site of the crucifixion.

-- The absence of historical reference points, including the prefectship of Pilate and the high priesthood of Caiaphas.

-- The lack of any other references to the "Pillars" as companions of Jesus. Although he would have been a contemporary of Jesus, he does identify any eyewitnesses as such.

-- With the sole exception of the Eucharist, the absence of any references to Jesus' earthly ministry. Paul ignores his birth, his mother Mary, his miracles, his preaching in Galilee, his disputes with the Pharisees et al, and his last days in Jerusalem.

-- The many correspondences between Paul's theology and those of pagan religions.

And, beyond Paul...

-- The gospels' pervasive dependence on the LXX and other pre-Christian and ahistorical sources.

-- The many historical and geographical errors in the gospels.

-- The lack of acknowledgement of a recognizable historical Jesus by Palestine Jews during the 1st and 2nd centuries.

-- The scant references to the Jesus of the gospels (by Christian and non-Christian writers alike) until well into the 2nd century.

That's probably an incomplete list. Nonetheless, compared to just what I've listed, the "brother of the Lord" phrase (an isolated reference and one that is still anything but airtight) is a drop in the bucket.

Didymus

Didymus

Quite so, and despite your excellent argument on the "brother of the Lord" issue, I think it's a single blade of grass. If we take the entire prairie into account, the grass still tells us that Christianity charged forth from Paul's belief in a non-historical Jesus, and that his Crucified and Risen Christ was later historicized by Mark, who searched scripture for more information about Jesus' earthly life.

In fact, I think that there's so much pointing in that direction that we are forced to consider explanations for "brother of the Lord" that are lower on the probability scale.

As to the "baptist stuff," I believe you said that Paul's use of the term "baptism" may have served Mark as a key marker for dating Jesus' ministry to the time of JtB. If so, I fully agree.

Didymus

Didymus

Yes, I suppose you could! :wave:

But please read my statement again, more carefully this time. You haven't cited a single example of Paul quoting anybody, let alone quoting Jesus by name. BTW, 1 and 2 Tim are not considered by the vast majority of scholars to be authentic Pauline epistles.

Didymus

Didymus

As I said in the post you are quoting, most scholars do not believe that the Pastorals, 1 Tim and 2 Tim are authentically Pauline. Seems like you ought to deal with that before continuing to respond as though it's not an issue.

In the meantime, I'll try not to make any deprecating remarks about apologetical debating tactics.

And, no, the Romans were not the only ones who used crucifixion. Alexander Jannaeus, a Hellenized Jew, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a ruler of the Seleucid Greek empire, used it against Jewish rebels.

Didymus