Solitary Man

Josephus is "unreliable" compared to modern standards. Modern historians are unreliable compared to what actually happened. This is the basis of the position that we cannot ever "know" what happened, save in this modern age where we can record it on video. But even then there's always the possibility that the video could be forged.

There are different types of histories for a reason. Comparing ancient histories with modern histories, or even theological treatises with ancient histories is a false analogy.

By all means, please explicate.

Red herring. I asked how pseudonymity diminishes credibility. And to what you said, did we need to know about Deep Throat to give him credibility?

Apparently, you just don't know a lot about midrash. And of course, neither does Doherty.

So if it's not factual history its fiction? Apples are good. Since that is an opinion, does that make the statement fiction? Of course not. But that is essentially what you're saying. You're excluding the middle.

Only good things.

TedM

Thanks Malachi. To review, you are addressing this issue:

I will agree that many make sense if Paul is referring to a Jesus who he believed was in heaven after having been resurrected, and I will agree that many make sense if Paul is referring to a mystery that has nothing to do with Jesus' being on earth. However, I don't agree that any of the references ONLY make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person. I don't see at all why that is necessary.

Can you clarify for me? I might point out that the "mystery" isn't one of who Jesus is or was prior to his "life" "revealed" in scriptures. Paul never says that that was the mystery. And, Paul never says anything to the effect that Jesus' life was revealed (ie made known) via scriptures either. My take is that Paul is fairly clear in saying that the mystery was that of salvation for everyone--including Gentiles--through the resurrection of Jesus. IF that indeed was Paul's focus, then Jesus' life would not have been particularly important to that message.

So, I don't see how any of those passages you provided support the idea that Paul must not have viewed Jesus as ever having previously lived a life on earth.

ted

mens_sana

As I said, my reading comprehension must be failing. Paul makes references to what plain reading would think of as a historical Jesus (born of a woman, crucified, etc.), so I just assumed that any coming of Christ from heaven would be a post-resurrection event, in other words, a "return" to this earth.

A note: I do trust that "plain reading" of a text within its cultural boundaries can convey something approaching the author's intention, which of course, has nothing to do with historical or factual accuracy. I also trust that application of the criterion of accidental information can occasionally come up with a nugget or two, e.g. the priestly-course-in-Nazareth inscription found in Caesarea.

Malachi151

Let me further clarify:

Now, is this passage not very strange if in fact Jesus had been a person on earth some 10-20 years prior to this statement, or if Paul conceived of Jesus as a man who had lived some 10-20 years earlier in Galilee and Judea?

There is no mention here of a return of Jesus, or of Jesus coming back, "as he promised" or as he said he would", etc.

Even if one argues that the revealed mystery here is no Jesus, but rather some tenet, that doesn't resolve the oddity. Revelation and "prophetic writings" are the source of the revelation of the mystery, but why would that be the claim? If Jesus were a person, when wouldn't he be the source of the claim, in his words on earth?

This quote goes on actually, and should probably be read in full, but the main point is that here Paul is indicating that the Jews have never seen or heard from Jesus.

I think this is actually a very significant passage. How does Paul say that people are to have learned about Jesus? Not from Jesus, but rather from prophets who bring the gospel.

Why is Paul talking about these things being revealed by the Spirit here instead of Jesus? That he would say this information was revealed by the spirit indicates that he doesn't conceive of this information as having been revealed by Jesus.

Again.

No, there is nothing historical about these remarks and no plain reading can introduce anything historical in those remarks.

Historical means that the claim is made in reference to space and time of real conditions on earth. The claims made about the birth of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are at least pseduo-historical, but the claims made by Paul have no element of history at all.

If I tell you that someone was "born of a woman" then you tell me how you fit that person into history? When were they born? Where? To whom?

We've discussed the "born of a woman" phrase here several times. It is clearly based on Paul's scriptural reading of messianic ideas, and I argue that the whole comment is allegorical in the first place as it is part of a larger story that Paul is telling about about the "free woman" and the "slave woman", which he says are allegorical, with the free woman represented "the Jerusalem above".

Paul is talking about people being allegorically born of women.

There is likewise no historical commentary on crucifixion in the writings of Paul. None of his mentions of crucifixion contain a single historical detail.

Keep in mind that historical is not the same as earthy. The messiah was always predicted to be earthly in the Jewish literature, so that Paul would describe Jesus in accordance to the Jewish literature is no surprise at all. If Paul is using scripture as his basis for his conception of the messiah Jesus, then he is bound to that scripture and must describe him in earthly terms.

Paul provides not one single detail that goes beyond what can be gleaned from the existing Hebrew scriptures. Paul's description of Jesus comes purely from scripture.

Jeffrey Gibson

Considered by whom?

Please tell me the names of any ancient historian besides Josephus and Tacitus (Philo is not an historian) who mentions Pilate, Caiaphas, John the Baptist, and Theudas. And please point me to the section(s) in Tacitus where he mentions not only Pilate (you have claimed that Annals 18 is an interpolation, I believe) but also John the Baptist, Caiaphas, and Theudas.

You'll also see name Jesus there as well.

What point is that? That if someone is mentioned in any of the works of these authors, then that someone's historicity is established?

Why not? To disguise the fact that neither Philo nor Tacitus make any mention Theudas or John the Baptist or Caiaphas and that Josephus is the only ancient 1st -2nd century writer besides Luke who does?

Where in the Antiquities does the name Gamaliel appear?

And now you are being obdurate. You of course know that the Gamaliel that I was referring to was Gamaliel the elder, of whom the author of Acts speaks in Acts 5. You know too that the Hillel I asked about was the one who was born in Babylon, who died c. 10-20 CE, who was reputedly the founder of the "Beit Hillel" and to whom the Pikrei Avot attributes the saying "If I am not for myself, who will be [for me]? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? and the MisAnd if not now, when?"(1.14) and the Babylonian Talmud the expression "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." (Tractate Shabbat 31a).

Where does Josephus -- and Tacitus and Philo or any other ancient historian -- mention these two figures?

How about Shammai, the reputed founder of the Beit Shammai‎ who lived c. 50 BCE - 30 CE?

Where in Josephus and Philo and Tacitus do we find him mentioned?

Jeffrey

aa5874

The evidence against an historical Jesus is staggering, even the internal information from the the aurhors of the NT and Church fathers is riddled with fundamental errors with respect to events and life of this Jesus of Nazareth, and this can be substantiated without taking into account the discredited supernatural claims of this so-called son of God, by reason, logic and basic understanding science.

The NT and the Church fathers placed Jesus, the so called son of God, at events that can clearly be conceived as virtually impossible from a physical or scientific point of view.

In the gMatthew 2.9, it is written, ".....and, lo, the star, which they had seen in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was."

Now, from astronomy and based on the size of the planet earth, if a star appeared to be over a house in Bethlehem, it would also appear, at the same time, to be over any and every house within a 70 mile radius, or over every house in a 15,000 square miles area.

But this apparent fictional anecdote shows that the author of gMatthew had the ability to write about events that could not have occurred and no-one could have seen.

From gMatthew, then, the readers are are asked to believe that the birth of Jesus was discovered during a fictitious event and that the sign of his birth was the sighting of the same fiction, the star that can stand over one specific house.

The anecdote of the star is evidence against an historical Jesus.

Dogfish

Until the info he gave was confirmed by other, outside sources, he was an incredible source.

Malachi151

No its not. Any amount of added nonsense could be added on to the life of a real person, so that can never be seen as evidence against that person's existence.

Evidence against has to be things that contradict the person's real existence, like if the earliest writings claim that the figure was an angel that lived in heaven and never came to earth, etc. It doesn't have to be that clear cut, but that's just an example.

Solitary Man

Like Tacitus and Josephus?

aa5874

You are totally mistaken, all we have about the life of Jesus appear to be nonsense. You must establish that Jesus existed as a real person before you can call the star story nonsense about him.

The story of Achilles is not nonsense about a real person, but its the nonsense of the story that helps one to regard Achilles as unreal.

In the real world, consistent absence of physical evidence for an event, or fictional accounts of the event, is evidence against that event.

And, not all fictional characters come from heaven or hell, many of them, it is claimed, lived right here on earth, and Jesus, some say without evidence, lived in all three places.

Again, you must establish that Jesus was a real person to declare that any story about him is actually nonsense, that is a fundamental truth.

Based on your analogy, the Pied Piper can be considered to be a figure of history, if no early writing of the Pied Piper showed that he was in heaven and never came to earth.