Steven Carr

http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006...storicity.html

This points us to articles on the historicity of Jesus, such as, http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2006...-evidence.html , which claims 'Mara bar Sarapion (ca. 73 C.E.)'

Or http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2006...ee-better.html which says 'The earliest Christian writings all assume Jesus' historicity.'

So there is little point expecting to learn anything from such 'scholars'.

Rick Sumner

If you're going to cite the article, cite relevant context and qualifiers. Not doing so is quite disingenuous.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Solo

...right, and besides, on a point of logic, believing that there was a historical Jesus, does not entail a belief that most of gospel "events" are a historical account of him. There are many here (myself included), who do not profess to be Christian, and who simply hold that on the whole, the earthly existence of a minor Jewish prophetic figure at the break of the ages, is a way better explanation of the origin of Christianity than half-baked theories that inter alia have no way of accounting for a sect of Judaic puritans in worship of an alien pagan god.

So Steven, if James the Just and his "saints" in Jerusalem evidently did not
worship platonic abstracts and pagan idols come to life as MJ, what "Jesus" did they revere ? Pray, tell !

Jiri

aa5874

All explanations of the historicity or myth of Jesus are half-baked theories. There is no document to show that your explanation is not half-baked.

I am of the opinion that Jesus is fictitious or mythical because all the information that I have seen, appears to be half-baked. I will change my opinion only when I receive well-baked theories based on well-baked evidence.

Steven Carr

It is sufficient context to mention that the guy thinks Mara ben Saparion is any evidence at all for a historical Jesus. What more does anybody need to hear?

jjramsey

Plenty. You seem to have ignored what he writes before citing the various non-Christian witnesses:

It is pretty clear that what he is doing is describing the non-Christian testimonies cited by apologists and assessing their worth. There is a vast difference between citing Mara bar Sarapion as strong evidence, and citing it so as to point out the pros and cons of its evidentiary value.

I agree with Sumner here. You are being disingenuous.

Steven Carr

I shall quote what Pahl said about Mara 'This reference is in a letter by a Syrian Stoic, and the standard explanation is that the "wise king" is Jesus and that the phrase "their kingdom was taken away" refers to the Jewish revolt put down by the early 70s C.E.'

Of course, you will simply quote in return Pahl discussing the pros and cons of these standard explanations.


After all, you have just said Pahl did that, so it will be the simplest task in the world for you to cut and paste where Pahl discusses whether 'the wise king' really was Jesus, or whether the Jews really did have a kingdom before 70 AD.

Unless you are wanting people to believe that Pahl discusses something that he doesn't actually discuss at all.

Clivedurdle

First, pagan was a term of insult invented by xians!

And Judaic puritans had a history of worshipping God and an angelology. It is not a stretch for them to invent another angel this time a son of god - also not original.

If we accept a historic figure you propose, so what? What did he say or do that made any difference, that believing in a messiah would not?

Steven Carr

Here is what Pahl says abut Paul's letters :-

' Nevertheless, he believed Jesus to have been a historical figure, and Jesus' historical existence had at least some measure of historical-theological significance for Paul: at the very least in seeing Jesus as a Jew under Torah, indeed the Jewish Messiah born of the lineage of David, who died through crucifixion and was subsequently resurrected (Rom 1:3; 1 Cor 11:23-25; 15:1-8; Gal 4:4).* Paul clearly believed more than this about Jesus, but none of this additional belief negates this assumed belief in Jesus' existence as a historical person.**'

Rather disingenous , don't yout think, to mislead readers into thinking that Paul ever refers to *Jesus of Nazareth* as an historical person, rather than some unknown Jesus living at some unknown time, who had emptied himself of divinity, lived an ordinary life, yet proved to be God by appearing to people in visions and dreams, in a state that was taken to be a resurrection.

Steven Carr

And Pahl repeats the bizarre claim that Jesus was meant to be an obscure person.

' In this scenario one would not expect contemporary records, official or otherwise, to have survived for such a marginal Jew in the backwoods of the early Roman Empire.'

I thought the Jesus of the Gospels was known far and wide even before he was born, and he had to be put to death to stop the Romans invading the country.

So the Jesus of the Gospels is not an historical figure.