aa5874

Evan, contradictions and inconsistencies are the hallmark of fabrication and fiction. There would be no need to redefine Jesus if He was truly historic.

If we examine the Christian Bible,we see this struggle to fabricate a connection of Jesus to the Jews. I showed, contrary to Romans 1-3, where Paul claims Jesus descended from David, that Jesus is the descendant of the Holy Ghost. To augment this point, listen to what Jesus is claimed to say in Matthew 22:42-45, Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 21: 41-44. Jesus himself ask, 'How can I be the son of David?' and it continues 'and no man was able to answer him'.(Matt 22-46)

The Christian Bible shows Jesus carrying out 'healing' which is clearly acts of witchcraft. Spirits do not cause a person to be blind, deaf or dumb, only sorcerers make such claims.The medical fraternity has already debunked that 'spirit' nonsense. And if a person was to claim that an historic Jesus did those miracles, then why don't these 'spirits' continue to blind, to make deaf or dumb?

If a person can show that Jesus is not historic, then Paul's historicity is also in doubt. Paul is said to have carried these acts of witchcraft which we know today could not have happened. The historicity of Jesus is a fable. There is no prophecy, fulfilled or unfulfilled, that predicted the Jesus as described in the new testament. Jesus is an incoherent fable.

Evan

Well, as I read the texts, a prominent recurring theme is that Jesus was viewed as the soon-to-be King of Israel. Jesus may have been living in a fantasy world to presume that God and the angelic hosts of heaven would intervene to assure his movement's overthrow of the Romans, but many leaders of cult movements have entertained similar fantasies. From a historical perspective this archetype is not uncommon. I don't think it is implausible in the least to imagine Jesus viewed himself as an annointed soul destined to reestablish an independent Kingdom of God, which in his view would have been a sovereign and independent Israel. The passion for such an event surely existed among the masses, and it is not improbable that Jesus could have capitalized on popular frustration with Roman occupation.

Evan

Let me revisit my example of the contradictory birth stories of Jesus in Nazareth and Bethlehem. In the primitive years Jesus was alleged to have been "from Nazareth." There is no indication in either John or Mark that he was from anywhere else. As the movement matured during the first century, it became recognized that the "Messiah" was supposed to have been descended from David and come from Bethlehem. Thus, it became necessary to relocate the birth of Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and this is the reason we have the fabricated genealogies and birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. These stories appear in the post 70 CE era, and contradict earlier traditions. So there was a vital need to redefine Jesus, despite the fact that he was a historic figure.

Where does the passionate desire to deny the existence of Jesus comes from? I can certainly understand the desire to deny that he was God, or that he was a miracle worker, or that he was raised from the dead, etc. And I agree with you 100% that there is no OT prophecy that predicts a person such as the New Testament Jesus. But what is to be gained by attempting to prove he did not exist as a human being? Where is the threat in imagining that he was a real, politically oriented person that was subsequently mythologized? I don't get it.

Didymus

Where does Paul say that Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate?

Where does Paul say that? Paul quotes Jesus by name only once (the eucharist).

Where does Paul say that?

Paul does not say he knew anyone who accompanied Jesus on his earthly ministry. He says that he met with men named John, James and Peter, but he does not identify them as Jesus' former companions. A glaring omission, don't you think?

It would if it were accurate.

Only a very few scholars believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles.

Paul does indeed preach Christ crucified. But when did that crucifixion take place? Where? And by whom? Paul does not say.

As is obvious from a careful reading of this, Paul didn't say that Jesus said he was God. He was "designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness" etc.

(Does the tone of this liturgical passage really give the impression that Paul regarded Jesus as man who lived in recent history?)

If your case is so strong, why is it necessary to embellish it with fake facts?

Didymus

darstec

A fact that was questioned by some early Church fathers who lived in the area and knew of no Nazareth.
What evidence is there that either Mark or John were first century? Or that John preceeded Matthew?
Actually, so do your stories by Mark and John. In fact all of the stories fit post 134 CE much better.
What earlier traditions? And if they weren't written down, how do we know what they were?
Joshua was constantly redifined even within the same text. Even Paul redefined Joshua from one epistle to another. And while we are on the subject, what evidence is there that the Pauline works were fabricated before the second century, outside of one tiny phrase of one sentence in the entire collection?

Where does the passionate desire to make Joshua a historical person come from?
Exactly which Joshua are we speaking of? Joshua is said tio have been one of the most common male names, (I've seen figures as high as one in every ten males), so any one sentence could be about any one of the dozens upon dozens of historical Joshuas. But how much must be true to consider a single entity the real historical Joshua?

Gamera

[QUOTE=Didymus]1 Timothy 6:13 - In the presence of God who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,

Gamera

Since only Romans practiced crucifixion and since he mentions Pilate, the answer is obvious.

Gamera

Romans 6:11 - So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Corinthians 15:31 - I protest, brethren, by my pride in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!

Colossians 2:6 - As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him,

1 Timothy 1:1 - Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

1 Timothy 5:21 - In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.

2 Timothy 1:10 - and now has manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

I could go on.

Amaleq13

From this post:

Ben C Smith

First things first. I very much appreciate Didymus contacting me about his response to me in this thread.

James as the familial brother of the Lord (whether full brother, half brother, adopted brother, or cousin) has the advantage of requiring no further evidence than we currently have.

Coming upon the expression brother of the Lord for the first time in Paul I would naturally look into the most common use of the term brother in Paul, who uses it to mean a fellow believer. However, that definition is impossible here; it fails to account for the distinctive usage. How would James the believer distinguish this particular James from any other? How would the believers in 1 Corinthians 9.5 distinguish these particular saints from any others?

So we are forced to abandon the most common Pauline definition of the term brother in favor of some other definition. Next in line, in my book, would be the actual denotation of the term itself, a blood relative. We immediately notice that this is how the canonical evangelists, Hegesippus, and other writings of the second century apparently understood the term.

But perhaps the term brothers of the Lord referred to a particular group of believers who went by that title in the first century. In that case, we would seek evidence for such a view, since we would be arguing for a particular assertion, not a general and usual meaning of the word in question. So long as no such evidence is forthcoming, we are forced back into some more conventional definition.

The parousia as a process appears to be a non sequitur in Paul, who appears to imagine it as a single, sudden event. See 1 Corinthians 15.51-52.

Paul does appear to think that the resurrection was recent when he states in 1 Corinthians 15.20:

But now Christ has been raised from the dead....

These do not sound like the words of a man who imagines the resurrection as an event from the misty past. He continues:

...the firstfruits of those who are asleep.

This harvest image fits better with a short span between the resurrection of Jesus and that of the saints.

For Paul, the general resurrection has begun. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was no resuscitation, as it were, like those effected by Elijah, Elisha, and Jesus himself in his ministry. Jesus Christ has been raised, never to die again (Romans 6.9); that means that he is the first one to have undergone the expected resurrection at the end of the age (which of course explains why Paul thinks the end of the age is upon him). The logic of 1 Corinthians 15 depends on Jesus being the first example of the general resurrection (see especially verses 13-14, 17, 23, 45).

It is not the appearances that Paul imagines to have effected redemption for mankind; it is the death and resurrection. If you think that Paul thought of the resurrection as having occurred long ago, you have to explain what Paul thought the gap between resurrection and available redemption was all about; it is not easy to imagine what he might have thought the gap was for, nor does he ever mention any gap, and such a gap would tend to shipwreck some of his statements (Romans 5.8-10, for example). Therefore, it is more parsimonious to suppose that Paul knew the resurrection was recent.

True, as I pointed out in my post. I am operating on the level of inference here, not on the level of direct statement.

Because the resurrection of Jesus was, for Paul, the first instance of the general resurrection; see 1 Corinthians 15. To say that the first instance of the general resurrection did not signal the beginning of the general resurrection makes no sense to me.

Paul has his own answer: God was waiting for the right time. On your view, he was waiting for the right time twice, once to kill and raise up Jesus, and again to reveal this event (much later) to certain messengers. Since Paul never mentions two right times, and since two right times would render some of his statements rather anticlimactic (such as Romans 5.6), it is more parsimonious to suppose that Paul knew the resurrection was recent, and heralded salvation for mankind, and was the single right time of which Paul writes.

Yes, that seems quite logical, except that Paul does not say that the sacrifice and redemptive power was manifested at the right time; he says that Christ actually died at the right time. Fill in the blank: The time (when Christ died) was right for ____. I fill that blank in with mankind to be saved or some such.

Unfortunately, what most Christians today do or do not think often has little or nothing to do with what Paul did or did not think.

At any rate, Paul says that Jesus died at the right time, and that Jesus was sent in the fullness of time. Do you find it easy to imagine that, for Paul, the time had been fulfilled, and Jesus died, and then time marched on as usual for who knows how long? That is what I meant when I said that it was easier to imagine the fullness of time having something to do with the (resurrection at the) end of the age. See Daniel 12.13 (LXX) for an example of fullness being used in this way:

Και συ δευρο, και αναπαυου· ετι γαρ ημεραι και ωραι εις αναπληρωσιν συντελειας, και αναστηση εις τον κληρον σου εις συντελειαν ημερων.

And you, go and rest, for there are yet days and hours till the fulfillment of the consummation, and you shall resurrect unto your lot at the consummation of days.

If you do not regard inference, the most common tool in historical inquiry, as conclusive, then you are correct.

You did not deal with the John the baptist stuff, BTW. My argument was cumulative. One blade of grass pointing in a certain direction means little; it has to point somewhere. But, when all the other blades of grass point in the same direction, you can tell which way the buffalo charged.

Ben.