ApostateAbe

OK. What about those cases where there are two sources for a particular person, and one account contains supernatural claims and the other does not? I have in mind the two sets of accounts about John the Baptist, one set of accounts from the gospels and the other account from Josephus. If we assume for now that the account in the writing of Josephus really was written by Josephus and not by a Christian redactor, would it follow that John the Baptist existed? Or maybe there is only some level of probability about it?

aa5874

The existence or non-existence of John the Baptist needs a separate and independent inquiry. The results of the inquiry cannot be transferred to Jesus.

It is hopelessly absurd to argue that John the Baptist existed therefore Jesus did.

The sources which claimed John baptised Jesus also claimed PUBLICLY that Jesus was born AFTER his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost.

They never said that about John the Baptist.

The Father of John was a man but the Father of Jesus was a Ghost--See Luke 1

jgreen44

Paul attributes "the Lord" with a teaching only three times in all of his writings. So it doesn't sound like Paul assigned a whole lot of authority to the teachings of an earthly Jesus.

MrMacSon

I wonder if some of what Josephus wrote was the source for some of the gospel writers or fore-runners such as the alleged Q.

MrMacSon

Verifying who wrote them, and determining in what context they were written, is important.

ApostateAbe

Earthly or not is actually irrelevant to the argument at hand. One way or the other, Paul regarded Jesus as an absolute authority.

ApostateAbe

K, never mind.

aa5874

Even if we do not know who wrote any of the books of the Canon their contents can be examined.

The earliest story of Jesus is fundamentally fiction when its content is examined.

gMark is predominantly a book of the miracles of the supposed Jesus and they are all non-historical events which could not have happened.

Essentially, the acts of Jesus are not only fictional but implausible.

The Jesus in gMark is not only a figure of fiction but a figure of implausibility.

1.Mark 1.23-- The healing of the possessed man--implausible fiction

2. Mark 1.29--the healing of Peter's mother in law --implausible fiction

3. Mark 1.40--the healing of the leper--implausible fiction

4. Mark 2.1--the healing of the paralytic--implausible fiction

5. Mark 3.1--the healing on man with withered hand--implausible fiction

6. Mark--4.35--the calming of the stormy sea --implausible fiction

7. Mark 5.1-the cure of the demoniac --implausible fiction

8. Mark 5.25--the healing of woman --implausible fiction

9. Mark 5.35--the raising of the dead--implausible fiction

10. Mark 6.34--feeding the 5000--implausible fiction

11. Mark 6.48--walking on water--implausible fiction

12. Mark 6.53--the healings by touch of garment--implausible fiction

13. Mark 7.24--the healing of woman's daughter--implausible fiction

14. Mark 7.31--healing of deaf mute--implausible fiction

15. Mark 8.1--feeding the 4000--implausible fiction

16. Mark 8.22--healing of blind--implausible fiction

17. Mark 9.2--the Transfiguration of Jesus--implausible fiction

18. Mark 9.14-- healing the dumb--implausible fiction

19. Mark 10.46--healing of blind--implausible fiction

20. Mark 16.6--the resurrection of Jesus--implausible fiction

From the start to the end of gMark the Jesus character is a figure of implausible fiction.

gMark's implausible fiction character is the earliest known Jesus in the Canon and was used by the authors of gMatthew and gLuke when they both PUBLICLY declared that the implausible fiction character was born of a Ghost.

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in or out the Canon except when he was a Ghost [after the resurrection] in the Pauline Corpus.

Paul admitted he saw Jesus LAST after he was raised from the dead. 1 Cor.15.8

jgreen44

Jesus' earthliness is not really what I was getting at. What I was getting at was the fact that Paul attributes so few teachings to this man. Jesus.

If I considered someone to be an absolute authority, I would be constantly referring to his teachings. And I would be constantly stating that the teachings I was referring to were the teachings of this absolute authority.

Paul only does this three times.

ApostateAbe

Yes, good point. I think better estimates of what a person believes are based on what a person says, not what a person does not say. For example, Paul writes:

10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

There should be little doubt that Paul regarded Jesus as an absolute authority, regardless of his relative silences in other respects. My suspicion is that Paul was relatively silent about the specific teachings of Jesus because (1) the teachings of Jesus often conflicted with Paul's teachings and (2) Paul was a competitor with the apostles who knew the teachings of Jesus firsthand. Any time Paul discusses the specific teachings of Jesus would invite the rebuke, "I heard the words of our Lord, and here is what he REALLY said..." There could of course be other explanations, but we should not choose explanations that directly conflict with Paul's known words.