aa5874

But, it may really be naive to say "Jesus of the NT PROBABLY existed after examining gMark and the Pauline Epistles.

Jesus of the NT was PROBABLY a fictitious character or was only believed to have existed seems far more appropriate based on gMark and the Pauline writings.

A statement made for the purpose of a discussion is valid but when no information or evidence is found such a statement should be abandoned.

The persistent statement that Jesus of the NT PROBABLY existed in light of knowledge of lack of evidence can be considered naivete or faith, belief without evidence.

Solo

Based on what evidence ?

Jiri

aa5874

Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Romans 1.4, and 1 Corinthians 15.4-6

Solo

No, you don't understand my question: I was asking for evidence to support your assertion that GDon has "knowledge of lack of evidence" of Jesus existence.

The OP disclaims the argument that you are making: i.e., that the description of miracles in the texts is evidence of Jesus' non-existence. GDon said that both Paul and Mark clearly thought Jesus was real, to which spin said, this does not mean yet that that Paul thought him historical. I disagree with that opinion. Paul clearly indicated that he was abstaining from reference to the words and actions of Jesus (1 Cor 2:2), which in all probability indicated that he discounted the historical witness of him (presumably held by missions which competed with Paul for converts). The statement "know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified" makes little or no sense if one denies that this is a reference to a historical person. Assure yourself that if Paul refers to a mythical being then this distinction between live and dead Jesus makes little or no sense. (Test this proposition with 2 Cor 5:16, where a contrast is made of view of Jesus by "flesh" and "spirit" ). It makes a lot of sense if one accepts the historical reality of a founder with whose closest collaborators Paul had a serious dispute: "He talked to you while alive ? Well, now, he was crucified as a criminal, was he not ? He did not know he was "sin", did he ? He died under the law, did he not ? Yes, yes, but I have seen him rise in heaven and this is the gospel I get direct from him exalted there ! So, you go to hell (Gal 5:10) "

Mark seems to be doing the same thing in a historical setting. He discounts the historical witness of Jesus in favour of "direct access" to the Paul's phenomenon of Christ. See e.g. Mk 4:10-11 or the Transfiguration, the meaning of which is not grasped by Peter and the Zebedees as the glory of Christ's resurrected state. Admittedly this is an imperfect witness to the historical person, as it argues against (the now lost) historical artifacts of him in favour of the religious ones. But apparently this is the only one there is.

So, let me tell you what is naive. Naive is to believe that because the news of Kim Jong Il's fictitious birth on Korea's sacred mounain was sang by a swallow, and announced by a supernova , Kim Jong Il cannot be a historical leader of an atheist state.

Jiri

aa5874

But, perhaps you don't understand my answer. There are people who have been posting here, for years who have not produce one single piece of non-apologetic evidence or corroborative source for their claim that Jesus probably existed.

Perhaps I should have used the word "disingenuous".

That is not my argument. You don't understand my argument.

Let me tell you my what my argument is.

The author of Mark claimed Jesus walked on water, transfigured, and resurrected. The author of the Pauline Epistles claimed he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state and that Jesus must have resurrected to save mankind from sin.

The external non-apologetic sources to corroborate the stories from the authors of Mark and Paul cannot be found anywhere. And that is well known.

The Pauline Epistles and gMark do NOT help at all IN the argument that Jesus probably did exist. They augment the argument that Jesus was PROBABLY fiction, mythical or only was BELIEVED to have existed.

That is my argument. Please don't forget it again.


Can you explain what "real" but "not historical" means. You mean like Marcion's Jesus?

Marcion's Jesus, I guess, would have really looked real, and was considered to be on earth although some kind of Phantom

You understand Paul's resurrected Jesus?

There is nothing in the Pauline Epistles about the Transfiguration of Jesus. Not one thing.

The Jesus in Mark appear not to know why he must resurrect, but PAUL knew. When Mark's Jesus went to heaven he may have told Paul, instead of his disciples, the reason for his resurrection.

The author of Mark appear not to know that Paul and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state so it would appear he had to come to an abrupt end. According to gMark, the visitors to the empty tomb ran away, fled, trembling with amazement after the man in the white clothes told them Jesus resurrected.

There is simply no external corroborative sources for gMark and the Pauline Epistles to claim Jesus of the NT probably existed.

Not even if Jesus did exist is it likely that the Jews would have abandoned the Laws of the God of Moses, including circumcision, to worship and deify a blasphemer asking him to forgive their sins while the Temple was still standing.

The Jesus stories from gMark and the Pauline Epistles are implausible since there is no evidence that any Jew worshiped or deified Simon Barcocheba the Messiah even when the Temple was already destroyed.

Again please don't forget my arguments.

1. There are no external corroborative sources for the Jesus of gMark and Paul.
2. Both gMark and Paul presented WITNESSES for fictitious events. Paul himself witnessed and participated in fiction.
3. A deified Jew to replace the Laws of the God of Moses is an historical implausibility in Judea. See the writings of Josephus and Philo.

What! Kim Jong!

Solo

What does the adverb probably mean to you, aa ?

And I don't understand your argument.

And I don't understand you argument.

Do you understand what people mean when they say 'you sound like a broken record' ? (Clue: it goes back to the days of vinyl.)


What is your argument, aa ? That the miracles 'augment' the argument that Jesus was probably a fiction ? But I told you that the OP disclaims those kinds of verities and you told me ......and I quote in case you forgot again what you wrote three lines back ....YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT.

But I just told you that it was spin, not I, who made the distinction between real and historical and that I don't accept it. So, how can you ask me to speak to it ?

I guess Marcion liked Paul's suggestion that the phantasms of oneself one experiences in the throes of a religious ecstasy is the 'Christ' revealed in one's body, or the mystical union with Christ in heaven.

Yes, I think so. Not that it helps much with the household bills. :huh:

I take from your asking above if I understood Paul's resurrected Jesus, that you yourself do not understand it.
It does not surprise me therefore that you would not be be able relate the Transfiguration allegory by Mark to anything Paul wrote. Here is Paul's suggestion to Mark:

And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. 2 Cr 3:18

The bolded word is the Greek verb for transfigure that Mark uses in 9:2[Strong 3339]

Will you share with us how you figured that one out ?

Well, yes: Mark's implication all along is that his disciples did not believe Jesus when he told them them he would be killed by men and rise from the dead. Mark goes even so far as to claim that Peter and the Zebedees didn't know what Jesus meant by "rising from the dead". Mark, of course is a Pauline with access to the Lord through the Spirit, i.e. in the possession of the gospel.

So ?

GDon was asking why you think Mark and Paul's writing is not enough to conclude there "probably" was an HJ. You are answering because there is no corroborative evidence to the events in them such as to make them historically certain, or nearly so.

Which of course belongs to the Angry Hausfrau class of argument.

But that is not the ARGUMENT I did not understand, is it ?


Jiri

aa5874

I will try and make it as simple as possible. I really don't mind repeating myself to make you understand.

Look at the question from the OP.

They are not enough in my opinion. I will list three points for my position.

1. There are no external corroborative sources for the Jesus of gMark and Paul.
2. Both gMark and Paul presented WITNESSES for fictitious events. Paul himself witnessed and participated in fiction.
3. A deified Jew to replace the Laws of the God of Moses is an historical implausibility in Judea. See the writings of Josephus and Philo.

I hope you understand now, if not I will see if I can simplify my points even further or add more points.

The main problems with gMark and the Pauline Epistles are authorship and chronology. It is naive or disingenuous to accept at face value the information found in these writings when it is accepted that these were likely to have been manipulated.

Please tell me what about Jesus in gMark or the Pauline Epistles is known or can be accepted as true?

After examining gMark and the Pauline Epistles and taking into account the writings of Josephus, Philo, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, and others, I am of the view that gMark and the Pauline is enough to conclude Jesus was probably ONLY BELIEVED to have existed but did not.

Mark and Paul is NOT enough to conclude "probably a HJ"

Solo

Ok, I see where the problem is. Let me then ask the question another way:

Assuming that the writings of Paul and Mark do not describe a historical individual but mystical communication with a phantom, do their writings still reference a historical individual indirectly, and is it possible to say that this is probable without refering to external evidence attesting to this individual in an objective, undisputed fashion ?

The events are not fictitious in the conventional sense of fictitious. Both writers were absolutely convinced of the reality of their experiences and that their reality was God-given and held sway over the 'normal' perception of the world.

...just as it is implausible that swallows sang of the birth of a Dear Leader of an atheist state.


I am deeply touched but for the record I am asking for only one favour from you: do not do me any favours that I don't ask for !

...that he was killed by the authorities for preaching about God's kingdom to come.

Jiri

aa5874

You mean like Marcion's Jesus the Phantom that was in Capernaum during the reign of Tiberius?

I have a problem with your phrase "mystical communication with a phantom", I have no idea what that means.

But, I try to deal with the conventional meaning of words to avoid problems. How do you know both writers were absolutely convinced of the reality of their experiences when it may be that they had no experiences at all but simply used some other source to fabricate their stories?


By what means did you come to know that it is true or can be accepted that Jesus was killed?

It must be noted that in antiquity the transfiguration, and resurrection may have been just as plausible as a crucifixion. Perhaps without the resurrection scene, gMark would have been rejected as implausible if it was expected that Gods could resurrect in antiquity.

Solo

The simple way to make this understandable is that in Mark's gospel there are two Jesuses. There is the historical shadow of the man and Jesus Christ as known through the spirit to the gospeller. Mark is trying to trick the naive, gullible reader into believing that his gospel stories are actual events misapprehended by his equally gullible earthly disciples. At the same time he is saying to the Pauline mystics: this is the Lord that I have seen through the Spirit, you know the whole gospel is a parabolic discourse.

Where does he say that ? in 4:10-11.

And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables

This is a clever slight of hand by Mark: Jesus is said to be alone and yet he has company ! Of course, none of these people said to be with Jesus can be there historically because they are Pauline Christ worshippers from Mark's time and for them there is no Jesus except as ....the phantom, seen through the spirit. And these putative mystics ask Jesus, why are you talking to people in parables ? And the phantom says to them ....pay attention now....: it is because you know the kingdom of God (is in your head) but they think it's something material they think I am here to deliver to them, so to them everything (i.e. the gospel itself) is in parable.

The reason is simply because there are many people with experiences like Paul's and Mark's today as there were two thousand years ago. Any therapist worth his salt will tell you : you are dealing with basically unhappy people, not shysters.

And again you can ask me how I know they were unhappy, and I'll tell you that when Paul tells his congregation he would prefer they were like him and not have sex, this was not something that was part of a clever scheme to make himself rich and famous.

I don't know by what means but I am authorized to say (by whoever supplied my means ) that it is by far the simplest explanation for Paul's and Mark's creativity.


You are kidding, right ?


Mark does not portray Jesus as a God. The idea of a dying and resurrecting Messiah was unknown in Judaism. General resurrection was expected in the messianic Restoration (Isaiah 26:19) but the idea that it would be effected by a heavenly 'man' in a sudden planetary evacuation (1 Th 4:17) was just not in the Jewish eschatological blueprints.

Jiri