ApostateAbe

Thanks for the correction, and go ahead and elaborate. What is the contrary evidence that applies to Jesus and not JtB?

Doug Shaver

As long as you've been hanging out in this forum, if you still have to ask, I'd be wasting my time answering.

ApostateAbe

OK, maybe someone else knows and would be willing to waste their own time for me.

ApostateAbe

The contrary evidence is Paul, right? Paul writing of a spiritual Jesus most of the time and of a human Jesus only some of the time?

ApostateAbe

I have been trying to fish around in past posts for what you take to be evidence, Doug Shaver. This is what I found from 2009:I think maybe that you don't actually know the evidence for your own position.

Doug Shaver

Paul does not write about a human Jesus any of the time, at any rate not explicitly. Neither does any other Christian writer whose work is unquestionably datable to the first century.

Paul makes two or three statements that are interpretable as references to a human Jesus. Considered in the context of his entire corpus, though, and especially in light of all other first-century Christian writings, such an interpretation is almost indefensible except on the question-begging assumption that Paul is referring to the same Jesus as the central character of the gospels.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are about a God/man entity that was on EARTH, but was EQUAL to God, the Creator of heaven and earth, who was BEFORE anything was made, and was made of a woman, betrayed in the night after he had EATEN, was crucified, died, buried and was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD DAY.

The Pauline writers gave a list of those who he claimed ACTUALLY SAW the resurrected Jesus after the THIRD DAY.

The Pauline Jesus was a God/man not a Phantom.

ApostateAbe

Thanks. Since Paul, as far as we know, does seem to mention what could only be a physical human Jesus a handful of times (more than two or three, not counting all of the very many times he mentions the crucifixion), I do challenge you on the claim that it is positive evidence for a mythical Jesus. It is positive evidence in your favor only if you have the best explanation.

If you claim that it is begging the question to assume that Paul's Jesus is the same as the gospel Jesus, I think the assumption is that only one Jesus, only one type of crucifixion, only one set of "rulers of this age," only one set of "brothers of the Lord," only one type of burial, only one type of resurrection, and fewer interpolations is far less ad hoc than two Jesuses, two types of crucifixion, two sets of "rulers of this age," two sets of "brothers of the Lord," two types of burials, two types of resurrections and many arbitrarily-chosen interpolations, which I really don't think is such a bad assumption. Specifically what question is being begged? The question of whether or not a bunch of extra new strange suppositions about what Paul means are bad for a competing theory? The question of whether or not a bunch of arbitrarily-chosen interpolations are bad for a competing theory? For example, as far as we know, there is only one type of crucifixion--the physical Roman execution that is historically attested at the time of Paul. So, if we want to talk about question-begging, then tell me: (1) What does Paul mean by crucifixion? And, (2) what is your evidence for it? If we can plausibly explain why Paul may have chosen to focus on a spiritual Jesus rather than a human Jesus, even with a historical human Jesus, then I think it remains a very difficult position to claim that Paul's writings about Jesus are positive evidence in favor of a merely mythical Jesus. There are too many extra steps you need to take. Because of that, the historical Jesus seems to have better attestation than JtB following from the writings of Paul, not worse (Paul never mentions JtB).

bacht

But does this fit the evidence? The gospels themselves present different types of Jesus characters. How does one reconcile Mark's miracle-working prophet with John's pre-existent Logos? How do we reconcile Paul's anonymous Son with the public ministry in Luke?

The point of the mythicist argument is that the rest of the eastern empire never heard about a wonder-worker from Galilee because he was either visionary or imaginary. No amount of arguing can change this basic fact. There are hints in the Roman historians about the existence of followers of Christ, but the man himself was invisible to contemporaries.

The default perspective for modern people is the literal physical one. For the ancients the default seems to have been the spirit world interacting with ours in various ways. Unless we can see their world through their eyes we're doomed to anachronistic conclusions.

ApostateAbe

Yes, there are certainly variations among the Jesuses in the gospels. So, is it better to propose that Paul's Jesus is different from the gospel Jesus just like John's Jesus is different from Mark's Jesus? Or is it better to propose an almost entirely new and different Jesus in Paul than what you see in the gospels?
Great, you are right, so we need to be clear on the two competing explanations so that we can compare them. One explanation holds that there was a man named Jesus, but all of the miracles are myths. Another explanation holds that Jesus was completely myth, never originating as a human being. Which explanation best fits the evidence and the patterns of history? We need to be clear that the Biblicist Christian Jesus is not a competing explanation.
Again, you are right, and I think we need to get into that mindset (and the other paradigms of the ancients) if we want to effectively discern which explanation wins.