TedM

Yep. You said it better. ..and I'd add '...because there was no conflict where I would expect to see it even to this day'.

Steven Carr

2 Corinthians 11
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Paul says outright that some other people were preaching a different Jesus to the one he preached.

Which, according to Bible scholars, means everybody was preaching the same Jesus of Nazareth :-)

Although , of course, Paul never preached any Jesus of Nazareth.

Toto

MCalavera: it's no fault of your own, but you have entered into the middle of a debate that has been going on for years, and you're not actually engaging with the arguments.

Earl Doherty has published two books on this question, and has a website. He has dealt with the apparent historical references in Paul. You might not agree with his conclusions, but it would help if you read the basis for his arguments on why these references are not proof of a historical Jesus.

Start here: The Jesus Puzzle

maryhelena

Hi, GDon

Let me make one thing very clear. I have always, going back nearly 30 years, upheld the position that a historical figure was relevant to the gospel writers, hence relevant to their creation of the gospel JC figure. Where you and I will differ here is that you assume that figure went by the name of Jesus, the name used in the gospel story. I think this is a mistaken position. All that name relates to is something along the lines of ‘god saves’. The JC figure is viewed as a ‘salvation’ figure. Which basically relates to the possibility that some people found some real flesh and blood figure to have some influence upon their own lives. A charismatic figure, if you will.

Take away all the mythological elements, the miracles and the dying and rising god resurrection storyline - and what is there is a possibility of a normal flesh and blood man. But that normal flesh and blood man need not to have been known by the name of *Jesus*. That is the name of the whole bundle, JC with all of his finery. Finery that has been made up of not just mythology and miracles but also with ‘clothes’ borrowed from another flesh and blood man - the crucifixion. I did, for many years, go with the idea that the crucifixion element came from the dying and rising god mythology. (The ancient Sumerian Innana mythology). More recently I’ve opted for a more historical approach - the crucifixion element is from a historical figure.

Yes, Wells has used Q in order to arrive at his Galilean preacher. I don’t think that is necessary - what with Q being such a controversial issue. One can do what I have done above - remove all the mythology etc. Yes, one can then say that by removing all the mythological elements there is nobody underneath it all. I often do that myself. And in one sense that is correct. What is underneath all the mythology etc is not flesh and blood but history, historical realities. Historical realities that present the life stories of flesh and blood figures.

Q? One first needs to establish its existence.......But again, one does not need Q. One needs a history book. One needs to put as much of the history of the time on the table as one can. The gospel story has given us its date stamp - from Herod the Great to Pilate. The gospel story has given us places that its JC travelled to. We need to correlate the gospel chronology and its roadmap with what we can learn from history. In other words - we have to let history play a role in all of this. Using the gospel JC story on its own is not going to get us to early Christian origins. GDon - I leave theological developments on one side - they will not help one get to ground zero re early Christian origins. We need history plain and simple - not history of theological speculations.
Yes, GDon, a historical figure is the best possibility - for understanding the gospel storyline and for all those millions of people who have put their faith in a historical core to the gospel story. But that does not require that the gospel JC figure is historical. It only requires that a charismatic historical figure was central to the lives, and to the ideas, of the gospel writers.

Why can’t this charismatic historical figure be JC? One reason is that such a figure need not have been crucified. Another reason is that the short ministry in the gospel JC story - either one or 3 years, is far too short. Miracles aside, there is little of any consequence for people to have taken notice. Particularly, as is likely, such a preaching activity was nothing unusual within a culture of prophets and teachers. Once the mythological elements are set aside - there is nothing to identify the gospel JC. Leaving claims for his historicity to be problematic.

The argument that runs along the lines that JC was a nobody anyway - so we can’t expect any historical evidence for his existence - is an admission of defeat. It leaves the JC historicists a laughing stock. Claiming historicity yet denying historicity should be expected - give me a break...

Bottom line, GDon, is that the assumed historical gospel JC, did not exist. Yes, one can still go with the idea that he was real flesh and blood - but then drop the claims for historicity.

Yes, I’ve often said - Wells and Doherty have something to offer in this debate. Wells with his insistence that a real flesh and blood, non-crucified, figure was relevant to the creation of the gospel JC figure - and Doherty with his claim that Paul’s interests are with a heavenly/spiritual/intellectual ‘crucified’ JC figure. Which basically means that we need to have a historical core, a flesh and blood component, to the gospel story - as well as having the theologically based speculation (albeit needing an update....) of Paul. Wells has updated his theories - and we wait for Doherty........................................... ............

TedM

I'll pass other than to say the stoning directly followed his proclaiming a risen Jesus, which directly preceded telling the Jews not just that they killed Jesus but that they killed a prophet, the Righteous One. I see no contradiction. They both had problems with Jesus. Not hard to explain or understand for me.


I didn't claim that. You are beginning to remind me of aa..

Paul was being persecuted at the time he wrote Galations for his views on Gentile adherance to Jewish laws. So what?

Galations 1:22-24 He tried to destroy Jewish believers. What did they believe? That Jesus had risen from the dead..ergo was the Messiah. How do we know he wasn't persecuting THEM for some kind of lack of adherence to Jewish laws? Because he INVENTED that theology. I can't prove these assertions but they are quite reasonable. Have I addressed that big ol elephant yet?


Paul is speaking rhetorically about the need for people to spread the word--if you don't preach it and people hear it, there is no seed from with faith can grow. Paul doesn't say that NO Jews had ever had ever heard of Jesus until people like Paul preached about Jesus.


If you understood Paul you would know what this is most likely about: Jewish laws and Gentile salvation and salvation through faith. Instead you imply that it could be about a historical Jesus vs spiritual Jesus conflict: For Paul to not address something that significant would be very unlikely. Paul's theology is pretty consistent just as Acts presents him: Salvation is available to all men through faith in the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. That was mind-blowing stuff for Jews who as Paul and Acts both attest were resistant to it on a number of levels.

TedM

Wouldn't claims of his resurrection have made people take notice? Do you think such claims are highly improbable? What if he had been crucified during Passover--wouldn't that make such an idea more likely to have surfaced (ie Messiah atonement for sin?). Why do you accept a crucifixion some 100 years earlier but not one for JC? That's what I don't get--you seem to be piecing together various sources that are only vaguely related to put together a similar JC story rather then consider how more likely it might be for one charismatic man to have inspired much of the story due to a few people saying they thought he had been resurrected for whatever reason...

maryhelena

Agreed. “NO HISTORICAL JESUS” as a specific individual.
Earl, you have been saying that to me for something over 10 years now......
Agreed. ‘NO HISTORICALLY CRUCIFIED JESUS”.

Earl, I hope now that your little rant has got all this anti my position off your chest - have a great day.

archibald

No. If you're a myther you need quite a repertoire of explanations to explain away the evidence in its entirety, and not even just Paul (though obviously he is pretty important).

maryhelena

No, sorry Ted, resurrection does not cut it....
People can claim whatever - and then along comes another resurrection claim - and on with the party....

Crucifixion is a terrible thing. There is no logical way in which a physical crucifixion can ever be valued. To think that the early christians believed such an abhorrant idea is to do them a great disservice. It is Paul, with a theological spin on things, that sought to derive value from crucifixion. And, Ted, that value can never be from a physical crucifixion. 'Crucifixion' can only be deemed to have value in an other than physical sense - in a symbolic or figurative sense, ie in an intellectual context. Remember these words of Dawkins:

To find value in a crucifixion one has to mentally transfer the crucifixion from physical reality to a purely intellectual context. Ideas can be 'crucified', killed, and 'resurrected' - new ideas always being indebted to the old. That is where human 'salvation' lies - intellectual evolution, intellectual 'crucifixions'.

With that basic position - I would not be so insensitive as to assert that the early christians found value in a human crucifixion. Yes, historically, crucifixion took place - and as I have posted previously, the crucifixion, binding to a cross and flogging and beheading of Antigonus, the last king and high priest of the Jews, would be seen to be relevant to any historical interpretations that the gospel writers were engaged in. Antigonus only ruled for about 3 years. A short period of time. He was a man of war. In contrast, the main thrust of the gospel JC story is about a man of peace. Historically, such a man did exist at the time period of the gospel date stamp. Philip the Tetrarch. A man, going with the Josephan account, who ruled for 37 peaceful years. That is a pretty long time. As you can note in the quote from Josephus in my post to Earl, Philip did pretty much what the gospel JC did. Traveled around his territory with his chosen friends and helping his subjects. History. Two historical figures, who together did, minus the miracles and theology etc, what is attributed to the gospel JC.

footnote:

Paul, whoever he is, can have things both ways - a physical crucifixion and a spiritual/intellectual crucifixion. The things in the heavens mirror or parallel the things on earth. But the value of a crucifixion can only be within an intellectual/spiritual context. In other words - as not all of our intellectual 'furniture' can have value for our physical reality (speculation, flights of pure fantasy etc) so, not all of the things that happen on earth have 'spiritual' value, have moral or ethical value. Thus, two crucifixion stories - one an abhorrent event - the other of supreme value. To value a physical crucifixion is foolishness - to value a spiritual/intellectual crucifixion is wisdom.....

Kapyong

Gday,

Really?
Think it through - we are talking about figures in ancient religious works.

And here you argue that any such figure which is human must be physically historical.

As if every person mentioned in any ancient book was historical.
Such as Adam and Eve? Odysseus? Apuleis? William Tell? Jonah?

Being human in an ancient book certainly does NOT make them historical at all.

K.