GakuseiDon

To be clear: those Catholic interpolations meant to bring the epistles into compliance with Christian orthodoxy were "born of woman", "seed of David according to the flesh", etc?

Toto

I don't think that early Christians did have a notion of "historical." If they believed that Jesus had appeared on earth as a man, it was for theological reasons. So I don't think that any early Christian can be used as an indication that Jesus was historical in the modern sense.


Why is this credible? Why is this the earliest claim that Jesus existed? After almost two centuries, doesn't this sound more like an attempt to make a case for a historical Jesus, rather than actual evidence?

Perhaps it fits, but do you really want to claim that a reasonable person would be forced to draw that conclusion?

Toto

Yes - mere formulaic phrases that indicate some obedience to church dogma, which are signficantly ambiguous that they were probably acceptable to some of the less than orthodox. There are no actual facts in the epistles that indicate Paul had any idea of a real flesh and blood person behind the theology.

aa5874

But, we have the written evidence

Ga 1:1 - Colossians 1.16-17 The Pauline Jesus was a God/man, a perfect MYTH figure.

No Roman writer or Jewish writer can account for the Pauline Jesus Messiah who was worshiped as a God by Roman citizens and Jews BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c70 CE.

GakuseiDon

I don't understand the difference there. How does "historical in the modern sense" differ from what they thought back then?

No, I don't think it reads like someone making a case for a historical Jesus. Irenaeus is making a case for his version of Christianity being the right one, the one that comes from apostolic tradition. I suppose you could argue he was lying for that reason, or Polycarp was lying, or even those to whom Polycarp talked were lying. (Similarly with Eusebius/Papias)

After looking at the alternatives: IHMO yes.

GakuseiDon

Fair enough; thanks.

spin

There is a distinction between something that is believed to have happened and something that can be shown to have happened. When Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, an event which most christians believe happened, trumpets were blown to bring down the walls of the city. Scratch sugarhitman or arnoldo and they will tell almost certainly you they believe it happened. I don't know if you believe it happened, but very few, in any, history scholars see the battle of Jericho as historical. Historicity is obvious a more complex issue than believing something to have happened. Believing something happened is not a sufficient criterion for indicating historicity.

You have continued to confuse this issue for years, presenting beliefs as indications of history.

Would you accept this chain of hearsay into a murder case in which a person's life depended on the testimony? You simplistically reduce the problem options to one: lying, for a lack of knowledge as to what really happened in the transmission.

You can claim that I have misrepresented you above when I say that you have confused historicity with belief in something having happened, but that doesn't mean that I am lying, does it?

I truly don't think you've shown the analytical necessities to give much value to that opinion, Gak. You've reduced options and clouded issues in such a way that--it appears to me--you're blinded to the range of alternatives and their weight.


spin

GakuseiDon

I have never confused that issue. The difference between believing that something happened a few years ago, and of believing that something happened 500 years ago, is immense. Paul gives the appearance that Christ was crucified within the recent past, depending on how much weight you give to "first fruits", the end of the age, and the resurrection appearances. The Gospels appear to be about someone who was crucified around 50 years earlier. That is very different to reporting an event that occurred 500 years earlier. Would you not agree?

I'm not sure what you mean. If Irenaeus is telling the truth, what are the implications? He claims that he knows Polycarp, who knew people who knew the disciples of Jesus. Surely the implications are obvious to anyone. Could anyone along the chain have been wrong? Sure. Do we have evidence for this? This is where you can build your case. Over to you.

If all you want to say is "we can't know for sure, then I would agree. That's why I put the word "probably" in my statement.

No.

I'm here to learn. Educate me. What are the range of alternatives and their weight?

aa5874

You mean you know that you are NOT an HJer but is ONLY pretending?

The HJ theory is about a man called Jesus not the Pauline Jesus who was the creator of heaven and earth and was raised from the dead.

Your "historical" Jesus was a supernatural being who you BELIEVE was truly described in the NT Canon. Your Jesus was a MYTH.

You are NOT an HJer you are a BELIEVER. You believe the Gods of the NT are historical.

A true HJer claims that Jesus of Nazareth was fully embellished and was hardly like or virtually NOTHING as described in the NT Canon.

HJ is NOT about BELIEF it is about PRESENTING the CORROBORATIVE external evidence or written statements of antiquity that can show that there was a MAN called Jesus the Messiah BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

The Pauline writers did NOT even write that they SAW Jesus and the author of Acts who wrote that he traveled ALL over the Roman Empire with Saul/Paul BEFORE the Fall of the Temple did NOT write that he SAW Jesus ALIVE.

You NEED external evidence, credible corroborative sources. Everyone on this board probably knows the claims in the NT Canon about Jesus, all we NEED are the external sources to support the claims.


But, you have NO case. No external source can show that "Irenaeus" was telling the truth about Jesus and in fact, even apologetic sources contradict Irenaeus.

How can we be certain that Irenaeus was NOT confused?

He did NOT know when or was confused about the time Claudius or Tiberius were Emperors of Rome.

Irenaeus did NOT know or was confused about the supposed age of Jesus when he was crucified.

He did not KNOW or was confused about the governor of Judea when Claudius was Emperor.

He did not KNOW or was confused about the doctrine of Basilides.

He did not Know or was confused about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels and confused about or did not know who wrote all the Pauline writings and when they were written.

Irenaeus did not know or was confused about the teachings of the Church.

Irenaeus did not know or was confused about the order of the bishops of Rome.

Irenaeus did NOT claim Jesus was just a mere man.

Irenaeus does not even support HJ.

Irenaeus was NOT an HJer.

This is Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" 1 NO Church writer was an HJer.

No Church writer claimed Jesus was a mere man who did virtually nothing found in the gospels.

You are NOT an HJer. You believe the Gospels are fundamentally true and that Jesus was raised from the dead. You are just a Christian who believe Gods are historical.

HJ is NOT about the HISTORICAL existence of Gods.

True HJers believe the Gospels are fundamentally FALSE.

spin

Yet you repeated stick on questions such as this: 'How does "historical in the modern sense" differ from what they thought back then?'

And a tangent.

And how is that related history rather than what was believed to have happened??

So? Urban legends are believed to have happened in recent times. Does that change their status? Of course not.

Have you ever played chinese whispers? The goal is to try to pass on the message you heard as accurately as you can. As long as the message is not trivial the final version is almost always remarkably different from the starter.

Add to this the issue of distant memories. We are dealing with a chain that purportedly takes us back 150 years from the time that Irenaeus wrote. Distant memories are notoriously inaccurate.

And then there's the urban legend tradition of something always having happened to a friend of a friend.

You know that, if you tried to pull such a chain of hearsay in a court of law, it would be rejected without consideration as unacceptable procedure. Too many possibilities for inaccuracy exist. Confused transmission, wishful thinking, faulty memory, lies, delusions.

Paul knows someone who was lifted up into the heavens. Do you believe that to be factual? If not, was Paul lying?

I've seen you for years without having any tangible evidence pronounce that the historical Jesus is the best fit. I haven't seen your efforts to show that you have developed a close understanding of the literature, any attempt to understand what they actually said from their original language, any search for other explanations.

For s few years now it seems I've asked christians to deal with Paul's indications of having received his gospel not from men but from a revelation from god of Jesus (Gal 1:11-12). This is in line with beliefs in having been caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2). I have asked, if Paul didn't need external evidence for his Jesus, why should you expect that there was. It is sufficient for Paul to believe in his existence without indicating any other source than god.

Note--and I have tried very hard over the years to clarify it--that the belief of existence is not the same as indication of being historical. History is fundamentally a modern idea though a few Greeks, such as Thucycides and Polybius, had developed functional historiographies. Very few ancient historians followed their lead. You find a marvelous tract by Lucian of Samosata, circa 170 CE, on the subject "How not to write history", ripping apart contemporary histories. In fact, in Greek there wasn't a term to distinguish "history" from "story". Historiography, the theoretical basis that one uses to say what is historical, is a relatively modern development. It comes down to notions of evidence, a consideration that you don't find in the sorts of materials you are calling historical statements.

You've seen me frequently refer to Ebion to show that non-existent figures can be considered existent, as you would sometimes call historical. If I can't get back before Paul who never claims to have direct knowledge of Jesus except from revelation, can I dare treat Jesus as historical? Can you?

Best fits are what we try to make of information and don't necessarily reflect any real about that information. I stick to the evidence and prefer to reserve judgment rather than be forced to decide upon things and never know if the decision is valid or not.

Alternatives? You've had several on this forum: historical, mythological, fictional, delusional, mistaken, drug-stimulated. I don't believe in fitting things and much prefer to withhold judgment as I'd recommend with Robin Hood and King Arthur. Each of these have had lengthy apocryphal developments, but we can't plumb the beginnings. I don't know how we can adequately plumb the beginnings of christianity.

However, you seem to want answers, while I want to know what can be known. You will be more likely to get answers, but you will have less ability to evaluate them.


spin