Steven Carr

These show how the cult could obtain access to the body of its founder in a ritualistic meal.

How can that be historical? You may as well have the Devil as historical, because people have been given instructions on how to make him appear.

Is the historical Jesus the one whose body was present when the cult members broke bread?

That historical Jesus seems a lot more plausible than the failed preacher.

'For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.'

Paul certainly did think of a physical Jesus, bodily present on earth.....

Steven Carr

And it fits in perfectly with Tacitus claiming Pilate killed Christ.

Steven Carr

So why did Christian leaders spin Jesus into a miracle working Messiah and God, bearing in mind that he had been crucified?

Allegedly, advocates of the HJ position can tell us that.

So go on then....

And why does Paul scoff at Jews for demanding miracles, when allegedly the earliest Christians had spun Jesus into a miracle working Messiah?

ApostateAbe

"But the ministry and teachings are missing. The term 'rulers of this age' may refer to demons rather than earthly rulers. The resurrection is not part of the historical Jesus in any case."

The resurrection is not part of the historical Jesus, but the disagreement, between Wells and everyone else, was whether Paul thought Jesus to be a human being. The "rulers of this age" may refer to demons, sure, if demons were thought to be rulers, and if they were thought to have temporary jurisdiction, which is possible, maybe they did. But, you know who was thought to be "rulers of this age" for absolutely sure? Tiberius and Pilate. What is possible must yield to what is probable. If you are going to claim that Paul thought of Jesus as purely mystical, then you are going to need evidence for the explanations for those instances where Paul speaks of Jesus as being a member of human society. You really need evidence. I figure the most damnably conclusive evidence of what Paul thought of the nature of Jesus is in 1 Cor. 11:23-25, where Paul describes Jesus having supper with bread and wine and Paul quotes Jesus directly. I bet you can still spin it in favor of some sort of mystical Jesus, but, you know, shoot, they are ad hoc explanations, and the position just needs positive evidence of some sort. You can always spin anything to fit any theory you want, especially in this field.

"The evidence is that ~70 CE is close to the earliest date for Mark; there is no actual evidence of the gospel until the mid-second century. Why do you suppose that 70 is the 'consensus' date? Could it have something to do with the overwhelmingly Christian nature of the soft science of Biblical scholarship and its perceived need to date the gospels as early as possible?"

Not really. Christians would prefer the date of the authorship of Mark before 70 CE (the destruction of the temple). It is the critics who place a minimum date of 70 CE. The maximum date is 100 CE, and I am not sure exactly why they do that (you would know better than me). I would place a maximum of 90 CE, and I would move the minimum to about 50 CE, just projecting from my model of an apocalyptic Jesus. He would be the sort of character who would predict the destruction of the temple. He had no time limit for it. And his prediction happened to be correct. I would move the maximum to 90 CE (60 years after the ministry) because that is when Christians would definitely be embarrassed by the failed apocalyptic deadlines we see in the synoptic gospels (the deaths of all of Jesus' immediate listeners). The synoptic gospels show little or no sign of embarrassment, unlike the gospel of John, which does not contain the apocalyptic prophecies, only an excuse for the myth.

"It is quite clear that Van Voorst's arguments are wrong on both counts. The gospel references to Palestine are notable for their 'difficulties.'"

They are known for their difficulties, but you know that Van Voorst said, "mostly accurate," which is absolutely correct. There is a lot of accurate cultural elements reflected in the gospels that a resident outside of Palestine, after 100 CE no less, would not be expected to know, and the accurate cultural elements deserve an explanation. How did the authors of Mark, Q, M and L know about the Jewish laws, the Passover, the Valley of Hinnom, the Samaritans, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the ruling prefect, the currency, the language, the diet, the towns of Nazareth and Capernaum, and John the Baptist? I am not saying that there isn't an explanation for that. Maybe some Jews of Jerusalem after the diaspora played a big part in the origin of Christianity. If so, then give the details. What sort of Jews were they? Were Jews the initial target of evangelism? Whatever your explanation may be, a seemingly much more likely explanation is that the religion began in Palestine, and the details were carried outward in oral and written traditions. I am saying all of this because HJ advocates can easily explain both the accurate and inaccurate references to Palestine--religious traditions get things wrong like in the game of telephone.

"Why assume that a single individual invented Christianity in a sort of Big Bang for the new religion? Why not consider that Christianity could have evolved out of a Jewish sect? ... You are assuming the usual historical Jesus narrative, in which Jesus was either a wise sage or an apolcalyptic prophet, but his disciples were too dense to know what he really preached."

No, that's great, many different advocates of MJ have many different theories about how the religion started and developed. The point is that any good theory needs details.

"How do you know that there was initial unity, followed by divisions?"

That is the normal pattern of cults, and the earliest Christianity was apparently a cult. There doesn't seem to be a model that fits the data better than that. The major divisions are where there is division in leadership. The cult led by Jesus seemed to be unified in leadership, and there came divisions after Jesus' death, when Paul competed with Peter for control as reflected in the epistle to the Galatians.

"I think this is a problem for both historicists and mythicists. The Pauline epistles and the gospels present many problems for someone who believes that a charismatic leader jump started the Christian movement around 30 CE but made no impression on the society of the time - yet was able to inspire literature that surfaced several generations later, and a preacher who never knew him was able to take over the movement."

My main objection is that there is no evidence that Jesus made no impression on the society of the time. Silence is sometimes sufficient evidence for a claim, but not in this case. Jesus made at least a little immediate impact, because apparently his followers carried on his legacy. I know you object that there is no record that non-Christians noticed, and I say that the vast majority of historical records are today lost--they survive only if a long tradition of people are willing to copy them, which means that pretty much the only surviving records are the records of the dominant religions and the people who wrote only for historical purposes, which we also have today only because of Christian copyists. All other manuscripts tend to turn to dust within only a few decades. As you know, potentially the earliest non-Christian reference we have to Christianity is that of Thallus, whose words survive only because of a quote by a Christian of another quote by a Christian!

My second objection: isn't that sort of a normal pattern of religions? They start small, like a cult, they evolve according to what is more persuasive, and they have their greatest effects only well after the initial cult leader is dead. Jesus was not the only one who can be credited for making Christianity as great as it became. Many credit Paul with being the defining founder of Christianity.

Steven Carr

ABE
My main objection is that there is no evidence that Jesus made no impression on the society of the time.

PAUL
So why does Paul say that Jews did not believe because they had either never heard of Jesus or rejected Christian preaching about Jesus?

By the way, Thallus never mentions Jesus, Christians or Christianity.

ApostateAbe

Excuse my ignorance, but can you please cite the passage for me? Thanks.
That's right, or at least we don't have any surviving documents of Thallus mentioning Jesus, Christians or Christianity. The fact that we have a quote of a paraphrase of Thallus explaining the darkness of the Passover as an eclipse indicates that Thallus probably did criticize Christian myth.

aa5874

The Pauline writers did not consider or did not write about Jesus as a human being. The Pauline writings are about a GOD/MAN called Jesus Christ the Son of God.

The Pauline writings are part of the Canon in which Jesus is conceived through the Holy Ghost of God and a Virgin Mary.

And if the Pauline writers did preach all over the Roman Empire and in the churches that Jesus was a human being then the writings would have been deemed heretical and would not have been included in the Canon.

Cerinthus claimed or preached that Jesus was human and that Christ entered into him, but Cerinthus was deemed a heretic. The writings of Cerinthus are not found in the NT Canon.

It is false that the Pauline writers thought Jesus was a human being.

Galatians 1:1 -

steve_bnk

How else do you explain the almost virulent reponse by some to an agnostic like me broaching the idea there may have been an HJ? Not that I loose sleep over it. There are non-believer's who appear to have a great a need to disprove religion as the belives have to validate thir faith. They have all the zealot characterisrics that the Christians can have.

Personaly as long as church-state separation holds up I have no issue what so ever with relgioius faith. I am working closy with a fundmantaklist creatinist and we talk periodicalay amicably and in the interest of understanding.

If one categoricaly says all religion is bullshit without having any understanding of what it means in the experience of people's lives, then the Christians will react with hostility. Tolerance goes both ways as always.

The ridicule of faith goes nowhere. Saying you do not accept scientifc validity for YEC, yet you can respect their faith takes nothing away from science. Until you can say this and mean it, no debate is possible, only name calling.

steve_bnk

Imagine you are Capt Picard with the aweseome scientific power of the Enterprise, and you want to open up a debate with a culture that may reject some part of science and has a bit of relgion in their culture getting in the way, what would the great Picard do?

Would it be 'Listen you assholes, we are fucking right and you idiots are wrong, get the message?'

ApostateAbe

Yeah, that's only in the director's cut.