TedM

Accepting the premise that all of Mark and part of the other 3 gospels was written by 80AD, and the high likelihood that there were others (and likely a number of shorter works) written by that time (Luke refers to many others) about a historical Jesus which did not survive, I would conclude that the wider community would have been very aware of CLAIMS of a historical Jesus and at least the basic storyline: Baptized by JTB, healer, preacher, leader, had a following, upset the Jewish authorities, crucified during Passover, tomb claimed empty. The number of writings would have been a REFLECTION of this awareness.


Nonsense. Jews were all over the empire, and Jews were very interested in anything having to do with a Messiah given their desperate political state. They would immediately have been interested. The persecution by Jews of Jews who believed in a risen Messiah PRIOR TO PAUL'S conversion is evidence of how strong that interest was. And remember that Paul converted Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul was a Jew. Paul's converts would have been VERY interested/concerned about the historization of their Savior Christ. The numbers were high enough to get the attention of Emporers before 100AD so I disagree with you.

That's fairly general. I don't think you'll find a claim that Jesus was historicized out of a spiritual being. Not in mid 2nd century, and certainly not around 80AD. Had that occurred though, IMO we would have no problem finding it. The fact that Paul was embraced by orthodoxy seems to me to be unlikely had he preached a mythical heavenly-only Jesus. His teachings would have remained with his followers, as his epistles weren't the only legacy.

EarlDoherty

My thanks to Kapyong for being spot-on in his responses to TedM's unwillingness to consider there was no Jesus at all, because that would be too shocking to believers and former believers. Actually, Ted has answered my longstanding question: why is it that some declared atheists or agnostics can be so inimical to the point of rabid animosity toward the mythicist idea and mythicists themselves? (People like Jeffrey Gibson and Tim O'Neill come to mind, who simply foam at the mouth against all things mythicist.) I have long postulated that even the former believer who has chucked Christianity from their personal faith is unwilling to think that they had been deceived to that extent, that the figure they believed in was not only not really the Son of God, but never even existed. Ted has illustrated how he is not willing to accept that, for purely emotional reasons.

Earl Doherty

TedM

Nope. You took it too far and IMO there is no basis for your conclusion which I've bolded above. As I understand it, you are right in that Paul was set apart, but the mystery was this: All people, slave or freeman, Jew or Gentile, were called to be a part of God's kingdom through faith in the resurrection of Jesus. That's why Paul was primarily interested in the resurrection and what it meant. You want some basis for this conclusion regarding the mystery? Check out something I wrote 5 years ago or so: http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...top20/id5.html

EarlDoherty

Ted, there is absolutely no evidence that all the Gospels were written, let alone known, by 80 CE. Even traditional scholarship extends the period to at least 100. Please give me one Christian document written in the late 1st century which shows knowledge of the Gospels. Revelation does not, the Johannine epistles do not. Not even 1 Clement shows clear knowledge of an historical Jesus, let alone the Gospels, as I have shown in both books and on my website. The letters of Ignatius, very probably forgeries written some years after his death, are the first to offer basic bios of Jesus, and probably not benefit of written documents known to the writer. Even the epistle of Barnabas relies on scripture for info about Jesus, though he believes such a figure was historical.

Kapyong is right about the Gospels only gaining dissemination and gradual acceptance as historical accounts as the 2nd century progressed. The first one to actually quote from them and identify such a source is Justin Martyr in the very middle of the century, though we know that Marcion a decade or so earlier used some early form of what became known as the Gospel of Luke.

The hypothetical document known as Q took shape through the middle and latter decades of the first century, and it witnesses to an eventual development of a founder figure, but one which lacked a key dimension of the Gospels. I have also demonstrated that it is highly unlikely that such a founder figure actually goes back to the origin of the Q movement, but was added along the way. But even if the Q community (or rather a part of it) envisioned an historical founder within the period of the later first century, it was a very local document and hardly represented the thinking of the wider Christian world at the time. It was also a founder who had no connection with the Christ of Paul.

Earl Doherty

TedM

Earl, this is a new low for you. I have illustrated no such thing. You seem to suffer from the same pre-suppositions that Kapyong has succumbed to. Go back and read my original post. What I did there was explain why I would not LIKE your mythicist position to be correct. Just like I wouldn't LIKE to get cancer, or to fall off of a cliff. For you to say that I'm unwilling to consider the accuracy of your position would be the similar to saying I would be unwilling to consider the truth of a cancer diagnosis or the truth of my impending death while falling off of a cliff!

It is simply illogical to conclude that my truthful emotional response equates to my rational response. The fact is Earl that I would love to be a Christian because then I'd have some certainty that this life we live has a purpose and that there is actually some hope for justice, enlightenment as to what it is all about and reuniting with loved ones who have passed on before us after we die, BUT my search for TRUTH has not taken me there no matter how much I would LIKE it to have.

You, like Kapyong, have mistaken my emotion for my rational thought.

Ted

Steven Carr

Paul writes in Galatians 6 that Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumsicion.

And he writes rhetorically in Gal. 5 about how people could tell he had not compromised on the issue of circumcision, by the fact that he was still being persecuted.

So if he was proclaiming that a crucified criminal had been the agent through whom God had created the world, a la 1 Cor. 8, why was he not persecuted for preaching about this blasphemous elephant in the room?

Why were Christians not stoned to death for blasphemy?

EarlDoherty

You haven't read Ignatius, then. Ignatius advocates the historicity of Jesus born of Mary, baptized by John, crucified by Pilate. Does he appeal to evidence to justify those contentions? Not even to a written Gospel, not even to apostolic tradition, not even to the idea that "we have believed this for generations." What is his justification for holding to the idea that Jesus had really been on earth and had suffered and died in physical flesh? His argument is that the historical position is so because it needs to be so. Without a Jesus in incarnated flesh, he maintains, our sufferings are pointless. That is the extent of his pleading a case for historical veracity and the legitimacy of his position over that of his opponents. "Evidence" had nothing to do with it.

When people believe something they want to believe, will a lack of evidence dissuade them? History proves otherwise, especially the history of religion.

Earl Doherty

TedM

That's interesting but Paul--if you are right--certainly suffered and didn't feel like Jesus 'needed' to be historical. Your response may explain how it could catch on quickly (some people thought it was necessary) but not how there remains no evidence of the inevitable clash between followers of Paul and those who were historicists.

Your quote actually would seem to provide greater evidence that Paul felt the same way, since Ignatius knew and quoted from Paul's letters.

You mention his pleading toward 'opponents' as though he is defending historicity. I assume that he was not, so something doesn't sound right there..feel free to enlighten.

Re the dating of the gospels, I may have to add another 10 years or so, but I did say part of the other 3 gospels, and was thinking of the signs gospel (50-80) as part of GJohn, and Matthew's sayings in Aramaic (mentioned by Papias) as the part of GMatthew that would be pre 80AD. IF the alleged Q was written by 50-80 we may have further evidence of a historical Jesus being fairly well-known within 20 years of Paul's death by Jewish and Gentile believers.

turning in..

Steven Carr

How does Doherty intend to respond to this avalanche of hypothetical evidence?

True Believers in the Historical Jesus don't need documents which actually exist.

They bombard people with hypothetical evidence like this unknown Signs Gospel , these totally unknown Matthean Aramaic documents.

They even give dates when these unknown documents were allegedly written by unknown people and demand that we bow down before these documents they cannot produce.

Just produce some evidence which exists, please.

Why is the evidence for Jesus existence written on documents nobody has ever seen?

TedM

Not sure what is blasphemous here. How is claiming a man rose from the dead and that man was the Messiah blasphemous? will check back tomorrow but will not allow myself to spend hours doing this again tomorrow. Have too much to do..