Toto

I'm not really sure about where these sites would be. Mythicists think that the "events" described in the gospels happened in a higher sphere of existence, or inside the human brain. The idea that Paul received a vision on the road to Damascus is a story invented by the historicist faction (and is nowhere in Paul's writings.) The idea that 500 people saw the risen Jesus is probably a forger's attempt to create legitimacy for a certain faction. The early gnostic Christians emphasized individual experience, not history.

If early Christians failed to venerate sites after the historicist faction is supposed to have prevailed, this might be an indication that the historicist case was not really that well established until Constantine forced Christians to agree on one story.

You say One reason may be that there were hardly any 1st century Christians. Christianity did not really get going until the second century, but invented a 1st century history for itself. There were in fact no famous first century Christians. All of the disciples were mythological, or mythological encrustations over real people who cannot be recovered. Paul was an obscure letter writer and traveling salesman, but he wasn't famous in his time, was not martyred in Rome, and his letters were improved with a lot of details that made him look more important than he actually was. (If he was martyred in Rome, that would explain why Christians in Jerusalem did not venerate his tomb.)

Of course, another reason may be that Christians were just too obscure and no evidence survived.

A lot of speculation is possible, with not a lot of hard evidence to prove or disprove any particular thesis.

Perhaps the heat of the argument reflects the uncertainty of the evidence.

lpetrich

I also think that this non-veneration is strong evidence for mythicism. When Paul went to Jerusalem, did he ever try to visit the site of that great salvation-bringing event, the execution of Jesus Christ?

Also, one does not have to wait several decades for such veneration to start; consider what happened after the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers.

Also, the early Xtians never bothered to try to date JCs last (earthly) days; they never mentioned anything like "the seventh year of the reign of Pontius Pilate" or "the nineteenth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius". Compare how Luke gives a date for JC's birth.

rlogan

Thanks all, and I will tone it down. Apologies for saying damned and being argumentative in appearance. In my heart, nothing but Christian charity.

Gukesiedon - I will do my best to get you over the hurdle here one more time. There was no vision on the road to damascus. There was no appearance before 500 people. no veneration becasue they didn't happen. I cannot be any more clear than this, buddy.

Every event that you name and ask me "why no veneration of this thing" my response is it didn't happen. It doesn't exist. the story was fabricated later.

You've got a circularity going there, GD - Veneration and Holy site are the same thing.

Please let me remind you I have been put into a position of carrying the "mythicist" flag although I have not even obtained membership in their society. My personal view is a "composite".
I don't know if "mythicists" have a defined position or president.

This is problematic in that I think most of us can name things they think are not true in the Gospel accounts. By definition then those are myths. So in reality we have a continuum from "small amount of myth" all the way to "complete fabrication of every line". Where is the "mythicist" position on that spectrum? I don't know. Doherty is one view, but not the monopoly view of "mythicism".

Ipetrich brings home another point I have made before - there is no date given for the crucufixion - the singlemost important and defining element in Xianity. That is highly suspect, even taken alone. Bring in all of the other problems and the complete lack of primary evidence, and the myth position is far stronger.

Toto has his finger exactly on it: "There were in fact no famous first century Christians. All of the disciples were mythological, or mythological encrustations over real people who cannot be recovered."

It also seems generally agreed that there were separate "Christ" movements in the early going that ultimately were fused under the gospel accounts that became canon far, far later. GD you seem to be under the impression that there was a NT bible store on every corner with the extant canon in the 1st century.

I hope I have gotten you to see GK why no veneration of Jesus "stuff" through 130 or so A.D. One step removed from that - where's Pauls tomb? I'm not even sure he existed "as such". Encrustations. The "Paul" of today is an artifact of much later construction.

Can you tell me, for example, what the Ephesisans, Phillipians, and so forth thought of the letters purportedly written to them? How do we know they didn't laugh them off? How do we know they were even delivered? How do we know they weren't getting letters from Joe saying "party down guys - Paul is a prune".

Toodles. Love to all...

GakuseiDon

Speaking for myself, you've nothing to apologise for.

Well, Paul certainly seems to think so - see 1 Cor 15:4 - 8.

OK, fair enough. My beef is more with Doherty than with you.

Rlogan, my problem is that mythicists will raise an issue and say that "this is a problem for historicists", without looking to see whether it is a problem for mythicists as well.

For example, Paul says that Jesus appeared to others (in the 1 Cor 15 reference above), but he gives no mention of time or place, just like the crucifixion. He speaks of meeting other followers of Christ, again without giving times or specific locations (other than Jerusalem). Should those events be considered mythical as well then?

Yet clearly the crucifixion seems to be a recent event. Note the flow of events in 1 Cor 15: Jesus died, was buried, then rose again on the third day, then seen by Cephas - presumably the same Cephas that Paul mentions meeting in person in Jerusalem later on. It sounds fairly recent, doesn't it? True, there are no dates - but that seems consistent with Paul's writing.

Also, why is a "complete lack of primary evidence" a problem just for the HJer? Why isn't it a problem for MJers? Why assume that people wouldn't write about a mythical Jesus? Why no dates or locations given for the visions?

I'm not really expecting you to answer the questions, but I hope you see my point: just saying something is a problem for a HJer without showing it isn't similarly a problem for a MJer is potentially disengenious.

rlogan

Man, GD - you're not getting it. I don't know how much clearer I can get. Paul is full of it. Jesus is dead. Dead people do not appear in front of 500 people. Dead people do not appear in front of anybody. I do not care what Paul wrote. It didn't happen.

There are not 500 people who went home to their families blown away by this and as a consequence make an annual pilgrimage.

I also do not care what is written in Noah's Ark, the six day creation, feeding five thousand people with a box of crackers and raising Lazarus from the dead. Supernatural events didn't happen.

It never happened. That's why no time or place can be given.
There are no dates for things that didn't happen. I am totally mystified why you want a date for something that didn't happen.

I can't seem to get through to you on this GD. Jesus did not Raise Lazarus from the dead. It is a bullshit story to awe people into thinking Jesus is a Man-God. I can't tell you where Lazarus' tomb was because it never existed in the first place. This story was written down more than half a century after Jesus was dead, if he existed at all.

Now you'll have to accept that my evidence for this is simple. Anything that is scientifically impossible is myth. If we stray from this then every religion on earth throughout all time is just as valid. Hale-Bopp. Jim Jones. Scientology. Voo-doo.

Well, anyway - I've done my best and I can't seem to explain it to you. It seems so crystal clear to me. Are you thinking that "Paul the Obscure" would make up such a fantastic story about the five hundred and then report a date, time, and place? Holy mackerel, what folly!! People could run right out and ask about it. It would be instantly defeated as a bullshit story.

That too is an important reason for not giving the date of crucifixion. If any records are being kept and there's no crucifixion of Jesus on Date X - instant end of Christianity.

regards...

Amaleq13

The resurrection appearances are recent but there is no indication that the death, burial, or even the resurrection are recent.

Note that Paul provides the basis for these first three events as "Scripture". That hardly suggests they must have taken place recently.

GakuseiDon

No problem, rlogan - I understand. As I said before, my beef is more with Doherty than yourself. Doherty relies heavily on Paul to support his theories. If Paul can't be trusted, then obviously his theories can't go any further.

GakuseiDon

This is what 1 Cor 15 says:

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

It certainly sounds like the "rose again on the third day" and "seen by Cephas" are contemporary events. Why does the use of "according to the Scriptures" suggest it wasn't recent?

Layman

All Paul says is that these things were foretold by and fulfill scripture. He does not say he learned about these events from the OT. Any Jew talking about the messiah would think the same thing.

As I have shown, referring to recent events in OT terms and themes does not indicate that the OT was the source of those events.