azuresky

As far as I know, Philo didn't mention Paul or the early Chuch either. Should we now claim that they never existed in order to be consistent? What of Paul's letters and the early Christological creeds?

Javaman

Ever since I first read Galatians 1:18-20, I've had trouble with it. I'm bothered that someone would need to point out that they're not lying. Why this passage and not everything else he wrote? Paul has enough issues to warrant (and has warranted) his own thread.

Edited to add:
See "Paul" for more.

Kosh

OF course, you still haven't pointed out why you believe this, against the opinion of the more learned Biblical scholars. Oh, to be a young college student again who is wiser than the rest of the world....

Once again, you use diversionary tactics. It was you who brought up Peter and James, yet when questioned on them, you choose to change the topic (again). Your strategy is self evident, and once again I re-iterate that you are here to preach, not discuss.

BTW, only 7 of the Pauline epistles are considered geniune, out of a total of what, 13? Slightly more than half. Unless you take the Fundy position, which of course is not open to discussion.

azuresky

You wrote "Oh, to be a young college student again who is wiser than the rest of the world."

This is actually an ad hominem essentially implying that I know nothing since I am young and in school. Actually, I wouldn't say that I'm very young. I have recently returned to college at the age of 32.

You also accuse me of committing a red herring by focusing on Paul instead of Peter and James; however, I tried to find common ground between us in order to facilitate a more interesting and thorough debate. I have various reasons for believing in the authenticity of 1 and 2 Peter, as well as the epistle of James, but my evidence concerning Paul and the early Christological creeds is enough, in my opinion, to establish that Jesus lived.

Magdlyn

Are you imagining there were church buildings in 40-100 CE?

Unless you have a time machine and let me use it, this is no proof.

Then you go on to lengthily quote one apologist. Who are these "most scholars?" All you prove here is your typing skills, azure.


If they were only verbal, how do we know they existed? Time machine again?

Toto

Ahem. Paul's letters do not identify Jesus the Christ with Jesus ben Joseph, do not place Jesus in Jerusalem in recent times, do not give any particular indication that anyone in Jerusalem would know much about Jesus (except for the indication that James was "the brother of the Lord" - which does not necessarily indicate that he was the sibling of a human named Jesus.) Why would a skeptic reading Paul's letters go to Jerusalem? Would they find a church there in any case? Were the followers of Jesus known as Christians at that time? (Most scholars think that the answer to the last 2 questions is "no". The followers of Jesus worshipped in Jewish temples and synagogues, and were not known as Christians until later.)

Hold on there. You have changed from Paul to the gospels without missing a beat. You were talking about Paul's letters, which do not place Jesus in Jerusalem. You are ignoring the undisputed fact that none of those Roman or Judean officials made any mention of Jesus or the Christian movement.

I refer you to Peter Kirby's Review of Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

rlogan

Hi azuresky.

I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent".

Methodologically we should be consistent. Not that there should be consistency between "no historical jesus" and "no christians existed".

Whatever Christianity was, it was certainly overblown by several orders of magnitude in the gospels. Jesus did not speak before multitudes and appear before 500 people as a corpse.

They escaped notice altogether. Moreover, the "nature" of Christ was initially spiritual.


Toto has spoken to the epistles. And I can't add anything to it except that Gakusi Don will try to push Doherty on you soon. He's always big on Earl.

azuresky

If you would rather not have the skeptic on the receiving end of Paul's letters asking for Jesus bar Joseph, then simply asking for Jesus known as Messiah will do. I have a feeling that James and Peter would understand exactly who he/she was talking about.

No, the skeptic[s] would not be knocking on a cathedral door. They would probably be either knocking on the door of a house church or meeting with other Christians at the Temple.

The followers of Christ were known as "The Way" until the term "Christian" came into vogue at Syrian Antioch possibly around the A.D. 40's. The word Christian was definitely being used by the A.D. 60's.

That Paul and the Gospels were both relying on similar creeds (see above posts), traditions, and historical facts seems absolutely clear:

His descent from Abraham and David (Gal: 3:16; Rom. 1:3); upbringing in the Jewish Law (Gal. 4:4); gathering together disciples, including Cephas (Peter) and John; having a brother named James (Gal. 1:19; 2:9); an impeccable character and exemplary life (Phil. 2:6-8; 2 Cor. 8:9; Rom. 15:3, 8); the Last Supper and betrayal (1 Cor. 11:23-25); and numerous details surrounding his death and resurrection (Gal. 3:1; 1 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 15:4-8).

There are various quotations of or references to Jesus' teaching: Romans 12: 17-19 includes a cluster of allusions to the Sermon on the Mount and the principles of enemy love. Romans 13:7 seems familiar with Jesus's famous teaching on paying taxes. Romans 14:20 apparently relies on Jesus' abolition of the kosher laws. 1 Corinthians contains three direct references: 7:10 on marriage and divorce; 9:14 on a worker deserving his wages, and 11 23-25 with its detailed knowledge of the teaching of Jesus about the Passover bread and wine. Okay, there are many more commonalities between Paul's letters and the Gospels, but I'm getting very tired of typing. By the way, I am referencing "Jesus and the Gospels" by Craig Blomberg for the above similarities.

So, it appears that our skeptic would certainly be justified in seeking out the early Jerusalem Church, or the Romans and Jews who crucified Him, in order to ascertain whether or not Jesus lived.

You write you are ignoring the undisputed fact that none of those Roman or Judean officials made any mention of Jesus or the Christian movement

For the most part, official archives of the Romans and Jews have burned up or disintegrated long ago. Am I wrong?

Toto

You are attempting to find some common ground with skeptics, so your feelings are not evidence. Could you point to some particular passage in Paul's letters that indicates that a person named Jesus known as the Messiah lived recently in Jerusalem?

Why are you so sure about this? Tacitus?

No, it is not absolutely clear. There is no indication that Paul knows any historical facts about Jesus, other than some formulaic epithets that Christians try to find historical meaning in.

allusions - but not attributed to a human Jesus. We know that many of Jesus' teachings can be found in the Hellenistic or Jewish widsom of the time.

seems... apparently... (except that Jesus did not abolish the kosher laws.)

The first two do not quote Jesus. The third is probably a later interpolation.

I am getting tired of repeating arguments that have been made here in response to these apologetic arguments.

You have not established this. If this skeptic only has the letters of Paul, there would be no reason to think that the Romans and Jews crucified him, since Paul thinks that the demons (the rulers of this age) crucified Jesus. And we don't have a date or place for this crucifixion.

Official archives have not in general survived, but Christians made a point of saving anything that referred to Jesus. We have the works of Josephus because someone inserted a reference to Jesus there, and because early Christians thought that Josephus was describing God's judgment against the Jews for crucifying Jesus. We don't have other historical works that failed to mention Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Well, Azuresky, I certainly admire you for poking your stick into the hornet's nest. But there are way too many topics in this thread, which is starting to sprawl. I think his suggestion that it be narrowed to a discussion of the authentic Pauline epistles is a good one.