Didymus

I think that's woefully insufficient. You have presented a) a weak argument from silence, and b) a totally subjective feeling. As propositions go, it's Teflon coated with WD-40. Talk about unfalsifiable!

"All early writers"? After Paul come the gospels, which could not be clearer regarding their belief that Jesus was incarnated as a man on earth.

So which early writers tell us that Jesus existed only on a mythical plane? Or is that not what you are saying?

Quotes, if you don't mind.

Far as I can tell, you and other MJers are working from what the texts don't say, not what they do say. Paul certainly doesn't say that Jesus lived on some sublunar plane; on the other hand, he says Jesus was a descendent of David born of a woman. Where can we find in Paul - or in any writings that can be shown to have influenced Paul - anything that tells us about lineages, births and crucifixion-like events taking place on some unearthly or near-earthly plane? Or, more directly, about Jesus having existed on such a plane before he was crucified?

I didn't say that there was no evidence for him. I think information about the human Jesus that appears in both Paul and the gospels (not in one or the other, but in both!) is as good as ancient literary evidence gets. There ain't much, but what there is is worthy of serious attention.

My miminalist HJ is falsifiable. In the epistles, in the gospels, and in corroborating evidence of Roman execution practices, there is evidence for his existence.

No, MJ is unfalsifiable, because there is no affirmative evidence to support it and thus nothing to refute. All you have are arguments from silence, from subjective impression and from context, to paraphrase: "There were 1st century and pre-first century writers who believed that reality consisted of several planes between earth and the heavens. Paul's omission of information about Jesus' life, teachings, etc., and his focus on the Risen Christ rather than the earthly Jesus could be explained by his belief that Jesus existed on such a plane and that the crucifixion, the Lord's Supper, the Resurrection etc., took place on that plane."

Well, that's more than you presented, and it's still mighty thin gruel. While it's true that Paul's writings don't completely rule out such a possibility (especially if you start attributing earthly characteristics and events to the alleged sublunar plane), they sure as heck don't rule it in!!!

Notice I'm not basing a "minimalist crucified Jesus" hypothesis solely on the fact that there were crucifixions going on at the time the gospels were written. That's just not enough. I'm also employing literary evidence, some would say independent literary evidence, depending whether you think Mark knew Paul's writings.

On the other hand, MJ theory is based solely on Paul's lack of descriptive material about an earthly Jesus and the (disputed) fact that sublunar cosmologies were in the air at about the same time as Paul was spreading his gospel. The first can be more parsimoniously explained by simple ignorance: Paul and his contemporaries living in the Diaspora knew virtually nothing about the crucified man Jesus who was said to have appeared to many Jerusalemites after his death. (The gospel writers knew even less, but that's another topic.)

Proof of the second is way hard to come by. Philo, for example, is considered by many to be a Middle Platonist. But nowhere in his extant writings does he adduce various intermediary planes between the earth and the moon, or between heaven and earth. Even if such writings exist by other authors there needs to be some showing of a connection between those writings and Paul's, e.g. similar phrasing and vocabulary, geographical proximity, or the like.

Who were these guys? How do we know Paul was influenced by them? I look forward to such a showing!

The authors knew, or had heard, enough about Galilean and Judean history and geography to write plausibly (if not accurately) about those things. Every story requires some context, and if you believe a) that your hero was crucified in the first part of the first century, b) that he was a rebel of sorts, what better setting than Galilee, a notoriously rebellious region? And Jerusalem, the locus of the Temple, the focal point of all Judaism?

It's possible, even likely, that Jesus was a Galilean executed in Jerusalem, but evidence of either "fact" is pretty skimpy. I mean, he could have been crucified in Alexandria or Antioch, but a shift in location would have been necessary since those cities fell way short in the "iconic significance" department. As I said, I think anything regarding the historical Jesus that doesn't appear both in Paul's epistles and in the gospels should be taken with a kilo of salt.

The major thing that appears in both, of course, is the crucifixion. Oh, and one more thing in response to the OP: There were probably leaders in the early Christian church named James, John and Peter. They too were mentioned both in the epistles and the gospels.

Didymus

spin

For what that I've said do I need to cite historical research?!

The rule goes: if you take a substantive position -- as you have done --, you have to supply evidence, something you haven't done for any of your claims. When someone questions you about your claims, as I've done, you're supposed to defend your substantive statements, something you haven't done.

Come back to me when you know what you're on about.


spin







No, the failure to find the body, which was the substance of your particular claim.

wiccan windwalker

come back to me when you stop applying an asinine double standard that allows you to draw inferences from the data but not me....

Vorkosigan

Windwalker -- the evidence is overwhelming that the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus is a fiction. Stealing from my COmmentary:

Violates Jurisprudence:

v53: Raymond Brown (1994) has listed the serious historical problems with the Sanhedrin Trial as (1) capital trials can only take place in daylight; (2), court proceedings may not take place on the sabbath, on festivals, and the corresponding days of rest; (3) A death sentence may not be passed on the first day of a trial, but can only in a new session on the following day; (4) Blasphemy consists solely of speaking the name of YHWH, which Jesus does not do in Mark; and, (5) the regular place of assembly is a hall within the Temple (the writer is usually seen to imply that the Sanhedrin met at the house of the High Priest). The Temple gates are closed at night.

v53: Mahlon Smith (1998) points out additional problems. (1) the court proceeding in Mark takes place on the evening of the busiest day of the year for the Temple priests. It is unlikely that they would have been willing to gather for a late-night trial; (2) the festival celebrations involved wine-drinking, further impairing the willingness and ability of the Sanhedrin to gather; (3) in Jewish jurisprudence witnesses had to be examined days prior to the trial to ensure that they would be present for the trial; (4) the correct penalty for blaspheming is stoning, not crucifixion; (5) any Jew, including Peter or any supporter, could have appealed his case and delayed the death sentence.

others -- it contains parallels to OT literature, it is a doublet of the Pilate Trial, its structure appears to be totally literary, trials were a staple of ancient Hellenistic fiction....I'm too tired to go on. Suffice to say that there is no reason to think of this event as history.

Vorkosigan

wiccan windwalker

violates jurisprudence???? that is all you have Vork? well of course the sanhedrin violated jurisprudence, they also condemned an "innocent" man and he would have been able to appeal had they not taken him in the middle of the night and gave him a kangaroo trial and then turned him over to the Roman authorities who gave jews no such due process rights. And they were upset that Jesus inhis public ministry had identified himself as the messiah and also as God and they also did not want a half baked revolt on their hands that would fizzle out and bring the wrath of Rome down upon them, and the guards have opened the temple gates at night before , how hard would that be? And it was busy because it was near passover and Jesus was prophesied to die near passover, and the correct penalty when turned over to the Romans is infact crucifixion, and for crying out loud, if some first century conspiritors were really making all of htis up out of whole cloth, dont you think they would have slavishly aped the exact routine protocol of the sanhedrin rather than turn it all upside down?

spin

Still no data whatsoever from you, but what can one expect from someone who doesn't understand the basic necessities? When you want to argue from data, then I'll happily cut you down. Why bother when you say nothing? Just look for evidence in this load:

Evidence? Not a jot. Just the usual hype. :banghead:

Malachi151

Not to mention the fact that there is so much symbolism in Jesus, the lamb, being scarified on Passover.

Jesus is called the lamb of God. Josephus tells us that on Passovers a special sacrifice of a ewe lamb is made specifically to atone for sins.

Hebrews tells us that the act of a blood sacrifice is needed in order to make any pact with God binding.

We are also told that the Passover sacrifices are the most important of all sacrifices.

So here we have Jesus serving as the Passover lamb to be a blood sacrifice to redeem the sins of the world.

Just a lil' bit o symbolism don't you think???

wiccan windwalker

you people are so blinded by your own ad hoc style of reasoning that you have become blatant hypocrites...Vork says that the Sanhedrin could not have met at night......poppycock! of course they could, and somewhere back in the thread I recall pointing out that the Berlin MIshna met late at night in "emergency session" during Kristallnacht....I see a ton of pure conjecture without a shred of evidence coming from your side..apparently completely conclusory statements concerning historical events that you were not present to witness can freely be made by atheists but theists are not allowed to do likewise. and by the way, your positive asseretions came first, they are i in the IIDB library, so dont play that coy game of saying the burden is on me......

spin

Doesn't that make you feel good to get that off your chest? There, you bunch of blatant hypocrites.

We have some respect for Jewish customs here. The sanhedrin would not have met at night. It would not have condemned the victim to death in one sitting. It would have condemned a blasphemer to stoning. These were Jewish laws and the gospels were clear on Jews carrying out religious practices to minute detail. If you want to read up on sanhedrin procedures, start here and read chapter 4.

One is amused at you going from the high priest and the Jerusalem sanhedrin to the Berlin Mishna. But any port in the storm will do. It doesn't matter about the strict purity regulations that the high priest had to adhere to prior to the most important feast of the calendar.

What exactly is your problem? Do you doubt that devout Jews of the era were capable of maintaining their own religious practices, given their strict laws? Do you want them not to have been devout in order to please your own belief system? Thousands of devout Jews died in the temple during the siege of Pompey rather than break sabbath laws. Thousands of Jews defied Pilate when he attempted to install shields in Jerusalem. Tens of thousands died when they defied Rome and faced Vespasian and Titus. Do you seriously want people who took their religious practices so seriously to have gone against their own system, just to rush through the execution of someone who was causing a minor ruckus?

I'm not an atheist, but you don't seem to understand much about the period we are dealing with or about procedures of evidence or about the Jewish religion. Your judgments therefore don't seem to be particularly weighty.

You have made claims here that you are wholly unwilling to back up. Your pronouncements about the Jews and their religious behaviour is a simple example.


spin

wiccan windwalker

spin, your quote "The Sanhedrin would not have met at night"..... evidence? Herod would not have violated the cosanguinity/incest laws? An orthodox Samaritan would not have stopped to help a wounded first century traveller? Later first century messianic jews would not have modified the mosaic dietary laws? Jews would not have painted the lentils of their doorposts with lamb's blood at passover? Orthodox jews would not have stopped the annual sacrifice of atonement with the red heifer? Orhtodox jews would never walk anywhere a dead body had been, where the ground had not been purified? .....spin, you have an amazing and truly astounding "pre-textual" selective style of analysis!