Switch89

1. Galatians 4:4 says that Jesus was "born under the law" indicating he was born a Jew. (I do not think the phrase "born of a woman" is intended literally, as evidenced by the parable of the two women later in the chapter).


2. 1 Corinthians 15:20 says that, "Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." Does this imply that Jesus lived recently, since shortly after the firstfruits the other fruit are born?

(This is the way Bart Ehrman interpreted the passage).

Although these two aren't much, I think that a thoughtful mythicist should consider them.

If you know of any other good arguments for a historical Jesus, feel free to mention them (But not Josephus or Tacitus, unless are willing to defend them against the latest challenges).

spin

Sorry, do you want a criticism of this view or do you just want more support for a historical Jesus? If the former, the fact that Paul, who never met a real Jesus, believed in a real Jesus doesn't mean that there was a real Jesus. How many people today think that Sherlock Holmes was real? How many people in ancient times thought Hercules was real? Perhaps we could wish them into existence.


spin

gdeering

A comment on 1 Corinthians 15:20.

Christ-followers could have been saying that for a hundred years, it does not state or imply a date, but I understand that the promise (unfulfilled) made some people wonder. I don't see an historic moment, the event remains elusively "in the recent past." One could easily see recent from the vantage of the time after one first received the word.

And the second coming is "Just around the corner."


Gregg

aa5874

There is no external evidence whatsoever anywhere known to man to show that the writer/s of the letters called Galations or Corinthians existed in the 1st century or had any evidence whatsoever to prove that a man called Jesus Christ did die or was resurrected.

The writers of Galations and Corinthians repeatedly claimed a character called Jesus was the son of a God, who died, was resurrected, ascended to heaven, and that the once dead man revealed some gospel to them, these are obviously false, these writers are not credible.

The history of Saul/Paul the supposed writer of Galations and Corinthians, as written in the canonised Acts of the Apostles, is not credible or uncertain.

It makes no sense to cherry-pick passages and take them out of context and then claim that they show that Jesus existed as human, when the writers repeatedly referred to Jesus as the son of a God with the power to forgive sin.

Switch89

How have I taken the passages out of context?

aa5874

Just read Romans 1 and you will see that the letter writer introduced Jesus Christ as the Son of a God.

The following words found in the letters with the name Paul, such as, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Christ, our Lord, and our Saviour all refer to the son of a God that died and was resurrected, ascended to heaven and gave the letter writer some kind of revelations, perhaps the letter writer was psychic, maybe the dead could talk to him, according to psychics the dead can talk the truth.

mountainman

Dear Switch89.

Acts 17:28, says that "In him we live and move and have our being" but if you have a look at this thread you will immediately see that the Hymn was to Zeus, and not Jesus at all. Moreover this reference is but one of many "borrowed" from extant Hellenic wisdom sayings. If anyone thought the new testament was history your two arguments might be considered a form of "bootstrap theory towards an historical jesus". However, unfortunately, the new testament is not considered to be a history in any sense whatsoever, thus the bootstrap fails. The new testament appears to be a collage of borrowings from older sources. This might be used to argue that the HJ (and his apostolic church) appears to be a collage of borrowings from older historical figures, sources and their respective academies.


Best wishes,


Pete

Switch89

I never mentioned Romans 1. Are you trying to say that the rest of Paul's writings indicate he was speaking of a spiritual being? If so, I still would like to know how you can reasonably interpret these passages as NOT speaking of a historical Jesus.

aa5874

The letter writer called Paul is writing about a divine creature who was God and yet man, but such a creature could not have lived. The letter writer, it would appear, wanted the readers of his letter to believe that this divine creature was on earth and then ascended to heaven after a physical resurrection witnessed by over five hundred people.

It must be remembered that the letter writer did not claim his Jesus was just a man.

And, the letter writer with the name Paul did refer to this divine creature as the son of God in other letters, not only Romans.