Gorit Maqueda

Logical: if we can explain R and X without a Jesus, we don't even need a Jesus in the first place.

Logical

I understand this objection completely, and I thought about it many times. Without his words or deeds, we have nothing? But in reality, given the history of early Christianity, or I should say the early Christianities, this is really what we should have expected. If a historical Jesus started a movement and got killed abruptly, the ensuing chaos, the conflicting reports and interpretations, the sheer number of opposing views, and of course the process of deifying Jesus would have resulted in what we have today: deeds and words that most likely have nothing to do with Jesus.

Why do we need such a Jesus? Because I believe there are still hints and clues in the mess that, to me, seem to point at a historical figure.

As to the claim that it's unfalsifiable to assert the existence of an ancient Palestinian Jew called Jesus, an idea as useless as asserting a modern American Bob, I respond by saying that we're still not down to an empty name. Even after stripping so much, there is still this small kernel surrounding the name, belonging to a specific person.

Logical

One more point:

I think the process of determining Q, or the possible authentic sayings of Jesus, should eliminate any sayings that Paul or others seem unaware of, as it is likely those sayings were attributed to Jesus because of those pre-gospel writers as I explained in the OP. Not that I think it's possible to find the authentic sayings of Jesus with any certainty.

aa5874

That is precisely what people of antiquity did. They also BELIEVED that Jesus the Son of God did Exist based on the stories of Jesus.

In fact, Skeptics of antiquity re-acted to the Jesus story EXACTLY as HJers today.

Christians claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and the Holy Ghost but 2nd century Skeptics did NOT believe Jesus could have existed as the Son of a Holy Ghost but was a man.

2nd century Skeptics like Trypho and Celsus did NOT provide any Credible sources for their BELIEF that Jesus could have only been human.

This is EXACTLY the same position today. HJers EXPRESS their BELIEF and provide NO actual credible evidence.

Apologetic sources that used the Pauline writings claimed Jesus was the Son of a God and NONE claimed Jesus had a human father.

There is NO Silence about the nature of Jesus in the Pauline letters.

We can HEAR Paul LOUD, CLEAR and Repeatedly.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a human being.

HJers MUST be DEAF or do not understand.

Galatians 1:1 KJV HJers INVENT their OWN Silence.

The Pauline writer said LOUD and CLEAR.

The writer was NOT the Apostle of a Man.

According to Ehrman Paul wrote it.

anethema

amen aa.

Logical

Two points: Believing that Paul's preaching is divine and not worldly is perfectly consistent with a historical Jesus. Muslims too would tell you their faith is of divine origin and not of men, while also believing Mohammad was a historical figure, a man.

Notice the last three words: from the dead. Paul is claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead. That is perfectly consistent with the idea that a historical Jesus was killed, and in fact makes a LOT more sense than the alternative.

This verse actually supports my position, not yours.

EarlDoherty

So you're basing your 'conviction' that an HJ existed on "hints and clues in the mess"? So why don't you live up to your pseudonym and at least give equal time and consideration to all the "hints and clues" in the non-Gospel record that an HJ DID NOT exist? Why do you automatically let hints and clues in a mess trump the more direct (and less messy) conclusion from the epistles that their Christ Jesus is an entirely spiritual figure?

The epistles give us a mountain of indications that for those writers and circles no HJ founded and constituted the continuing basis of their faith. Leave the Q side (if you subscribe to it) of things aside. Adopt Wells' conversion to a 'historical sage' at the root of Q, if you like. Are you willing to open your mind to the likelihood (based on the evidence) that the epistolary side of things had no HJ?

Or do you have a predisposition against it for reasons you are not telling us?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

It would make a lot more sense and support your position IF we had a clearly presented HJ in the epistles as a whole. (Please don't think that "born of woman" and "brother of the Lord" can bear that kind of weight.) In fact we have far more indication of a non-historical Jesus in the epistles than the opposite. Far more.

Thus, while it may be theoretically "consistent" with an HJ that Paul says that Jesus "was raised from the dead", it becomes more consistent with the spiritual Christ position, since that is the overwhelming conclusion to be derived from that literature.

Earl Doherty

anethema

Im not sure it does. In the context of 1st century thought you could divinize actual living humans after death ie. julius and augustus, but the dying and rising personage is always preexistant, or mythological. I think Paul is clearly talking about a prexisting entity.

Godfrey

Please. If you want to talk about external motivation for taking a certain position, how about selling a bunch of books?

Would YOU be open to changing your position, ever, after all the stuff you've written and published?