Ben C Smith

As epistles or gospels.

Then I think you are misusing the term scripture, which is not a genre.

This is no longer a claim about sources used by April DeConick. It is a claim about sources used by Paul and by Mark.

Maybe, maybe not. I personally am not sure. Nor is it relevant to my claims here.

It seems clear that your response (scriptural or revelatory?) to my quotation of April DeConick claiming reasons to believe something had little to do with April DeConick. If DeConick claims that Jesus existed based on her reading of Mark and Paul, then she is in the same boat as you so far as sources are concerned, claiming that Mark and Paul used the Hebrew scriptures as a source based on your reading of Mark and Paul.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

This is not about how much evidence there is (or is not) for an HJ.

Ben.

Steven Carr

I thought you would retreat from saying April had much evidence for her conviction that there was an historical Jesus, and that the Gospels are Christian memories of him, in much the same way that conservatives have memories of Ronald Reagan.

Ben C Smith

It is possible to regard a text as just a text and simultaneously acknowledge that others regard it as very much more than just a text.

The word is certainly used that way in many circles. But not everybody accepts the NT, for example, as scripture. What is holy to you may or may not be holy to me.

Let me ask you this: Were the Pauline epistles scripture right from the start? I mean, did Paul know that he was writing scripture?

I think this is overstated.

Ben.

dog-on

Apart from the issues using the term scriptures as a genre, I ask you:

What other sources are there for Jesus, besides the gospels and epistles, that do not, themselves, rely on those same Gospels and Epistles since these are derived from scriptures and revelations, could Ms. DeConick have possibly used?

Ben C Smith

It is not my position that there is much evidence for an HJ. I am on record as stating that the evidence is slightly in favor of it. In a recent poll on this forum I weighed in at about 60% probability of an HJ.

Nor is it my position necessarily that the gospels are Christian memories of him. I think that the gospels contain memories of him, but those memories are interspersed with much that is legendary or embellished.

Ben.

Apostate1970

No, I never at all said that they were all other people nor is that a consequence of anything I've said. In fact not only were they not either other gods or real people, but there were not even thoughts thereof for most of the potential "Jesuses" ... that's the whole point. Paul was warning against some people who were actually capitalizing on rival stories and warning against an infinite panoply of potential such stories contrary to his most of which had never even been told yet. Paul and others were in the process of mythologizing the real historical person Jesus and turning him into a god, to which end they were warning the followers of early Christendom to not listen to other stories and not adopt other gods. This is exactly what we should expect of anyone turning anyone else into a god. How does this remotely suggest that there was not a Jesus-person? It doesn't. It's a rhetorical device ... I mean, I might say to you "Don't settle for false Coke, only drink real Coke!". Should we conclude that Coke doesn't eixst??! It could really be anyone or anything just so long as you're working hard enough to instill "brand loyalty".

I don't know but I'm confident that there were such disputes. I do know that there were mutiple early schisms in Islam (this caliph or that, this family member or that), and I'm confident that there were arguments made by one faction against the other(s) or against the very idea of factions developing which were worded in similar ways. We don't have to look to Paul for an example of this but can look direclty to the gospels themselves as, for example, in Matthew 24:24. I'm certain that Islam has just such warnings even though I am not familiar enough with its texts to know exactly where.

He did claim that there were false prophets and his successive followers have indeed claimed that there were false prophets and teachers of false ways in Mormonism. So yes. It's rather funny since in you citing these examples you're undermining your own "argument".

Not at all. It's really absurd that you translate it in this way. When Paul talks about "preaching another Jesus" he's merely saying that some people will say different things about Jesus. But of course! Again, this is not the slightest bit of evidence that there was no Jesus. Another thing he's doing is trying to make Jesus a god and raise his own views about him to the status of orthodoxy. So?

Of course there is that question. That question exists for anyone who didn't actually meet him. That doesn't mean that some answers are not more reasonable than others.

You yourself have suggested that Islam is based on a real person. So why not Christianity too? Surely Mohammed must never really have existed?! Phaw! Idiot that you believe Mohammed to have existed! What evidence do you have? None!

Yes, the parallels between Socrates and Jesus are strong. Similarly for the parallel between Mohammed and Jesus which you yourself gave.

Who cares? As I've already said, many real persons "produce revelations". More more than do produce revelations of wholly fabricated people.

Who cares? As I said, our historical evidence doesn't come from Paul so much as from the canonical and noncanonical gospels. Paul was obviously donig something else entirely ... he was just an early zealot.

Since you brought up Joseph Smith ... take a look at this >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_(LDS_Church)

In particular, look at how many were excommunicated or murdered. 2,000 years from now, what will Mormonism be? Will Joseph Smith have existed? Who knows?


As I already said, the chief source is the canonical and noncanonical gospels. There's also the very existence of the Essenes and the changing traditions and emphases within Judaism over the previous centuries and the beliefs of surrounding regions which jointly make it very unlikely that sooner or later someone like Jesus would not have come along.

I have to say that I think that to a great extent the whole ahistoricist project is a lot like the creationist project or like radical skepticism ... no one should take either of them seriously. 1) They have a fixed end they will reach no matter what, and 2) They just want to keep you talking long enough until they've sowed not doubt but disbelief in someone's mind by the inability of their opposition to decisively prove historicity/evolution etc. But neither disbelief nor even serious doubt are authorized by an inability to prove.

Steven Carr

I see.

So asking historicists to explain the difference between Pauline Christianity and Benjamin Creme's Maitreya is like creationists demanding to be shown transitional fossils.

In neither case, neither the HJ supporter nor the evolutionist can produce the Jesus or produce the transitional fossils.

But the inability of the HJ supporter or the paleontologist to produce convincing evidence does not reflect on their positions.

The mythical Jesus is just as cranky as creationism, as Historical Jesus supporters freely admit they can no more prove their case than evolutionists can prove that mankind evolved after dinosaurs went extinct....

So whole branches of comparative religion are never to be studied as the one thing we cannot allow is people comparing Christianity to religions based on mythical people like the Maitreya.

After all, MJ supporters pointing out that there really have been religions created out of thin air are like creationists claiming species were created from scratch.

Neither of the two can produce evidence for their views, apart from the mythical Jesus supporters.

Ben C Smith

Hegesippus. (She specifically mentioned him.) There is nothing in the gospels about Cl(e)opas being the brother of Joseph, or about the grandsons of Jude being of dominical lineage, or about Symeon being cousin to Jesus, or about the missional desposynoi.

Josephus (Antiquities 20).

Possibly Tacitus. Maybe Tacitus was using Christian information, but maybe not. It is not a clear issue.

Ben.

wordy

I am just a naive onlooker to all this. I know nothing about what the writers at that time was capable of stitching together to look credible enough to fool their contemporary readers.

But this Joseph Smith makes me trust that it is possible to get a following by totally fabricating a book. I mean when I try to read their book Mormon's book or what it is named. To me it seems impossible that anybody would trust it to be real.

It is so obviously made up. Same with the Bible. To me it is a kind if miracle that anybody find it to be about a real Jesus. I trust Jesus to be pure myth.

But I also trust that there where such persons that did walk around preaching and healing and doing all sort of prophesy on emmidiate dangers coming.

Very much like the claims that it was not Osama Bin Laden that did 911 and that it is a big cover up of inside job and so on. Seems to be a lot of people trusting such conspiracy. Same as those who say we never walked on the moon.

Wordy

PS to the comments on the new guy being assistant to the JP. I don't want to derail the thread so don't comment on it. Thanks for telling me I was not entirely wrong then.