Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KnightWhoSaysNi · 11-13-2007, 09:22 PM

This thread has been set up to provide a Peanut Gallery for a FORMAL DEBATE between GakuseiDon and Malachi151 who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: the evidence shows that the Jesus of the letters of Paul, the Gospels and other New Testament works was a real live person."

GakuseiDon will affirm and Malachi151 will oppose. The debate will tentatively have three rounds and GakuseiDon will go first.

We ask that the formal debate participants refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery until the debate is over.

Enjoy the debate!

- KWSN, FD Moderator

gstafleu · 11-14-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GD

In this debate, I will concentrate on the positive evidence that I believe shows that the early Christian writers regarded Jesus as a real live person.

Maybe I misunderstood something, but even assuming GD shows that e.g. Paul believed JC to be a real person, how is this evidence for an HJ? There were no doubt people near Joseph Smith who believed he had the real goods...

BTW, countering the position that Paul believed in an HJ will probably involve considering alternate explanations for passages in his writings. Will that conflict with the "No MJ-theories" prerequisite of the debate?

Gerard Stafleu

andrewcriddle · 11-14-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by GD

In this debate, I will concentrate on the positive evidence that I believe shows that the early Christian writers regarded Jesus as a real live person.

Maybe I misunderstood something, but even assuming GD shows that e.g. Paul believed JC to be a real person, how is this evidence for an HJ? There were no doubt people near Joseph Smith who believed he had the real goods...

IMO if Paul believed Jesus Christ to be a real and recent person living on this earth, then this must be evidence for a Historical Jesus.

It may not be conclusive evidence but that is another matter.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist · 11-14-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

IMO if Paul believed Jesus Christ to be a real and recent person living on this earth, then this must be evidence for a Historical Jesus.

People who have visions and do what voices tell them to do today are locked up for their own good.

gstafleu · 11-14-2007, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IMO if Paul believed Jesus Christ to be a real and recent person living on this earth, then this must be evidence for a Historical Jesus.

Yes, I suppose... From the non-HJ POV there never is any doubt that at some point, e.g. the gospels, people started to believe in an HJ. GD's argument just seems to move the point in time when the idea of an HJ arrived back to Paul.

I was hoping that this debate would at least result in a list of HJ evidence. It is still early days, of course, but just saying "Well, the epistle writers seem to have believed in an HJ" seems rather meagre.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 11-14-2007, 11:47 AM

In his point "2. Crucified in Jerusalem" GD says: "Then, he quotes scriptures to say that the stumbling block was in Zion (Jerusalem)". AFAIKT this is how he gets Paul to say that JC was crucified in Jerusalem. Is this implicit equality, Zion=Jerusalem, reasonable? (Just asking, I don't know).

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 11-14-2007, 11:53 AM

In point 3 GD argues that Jesus' resurrection must have been in Paul's recent past. Stipulating that, how is that evidence for an HJ, given that the argument seems to work equally well for a spiritual Jesus?

Gerard Stafleu

enoch007 · 11-14-2007, 12:52 PM

Is there not some element of corraboration inasmuch as Paul, after his conversion, had dealings with the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, ie Peter and others. Would not they also have further confirmed the existance of a real person?

robto · 11-14-2007, 01:27 PM

Good opening post for GD, and I'm looking forward to Malachi's response.

However, I think by concentrating only on Paul, he missed out on a major line of evidence: the results of NT critical scholarship. In particular, the Q/Mark/Thomas overlaps are important, IMO.

spin · 11-14-2007, 01:54 PM

Where does Gak actually speak to the topic that Jesus was a real person?

Gak's conclusions...

Quote:

1. There is a precedent for a pre-existing figure who was a mediator for God. That figure was Moses, who was regarded as a historical person to First Century CE Jews.

True but, irrelevant to the job of finding a historical Jesus.

Quote:

2. There was enormous pressure on the early Christians to "find" Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. Early Christian writings are full of allusions and quotes from the Old Testament. This focus was undoubtedly a response to trying to prove that Jesus was the predicted Messiah when Christianity was struggling to establish its validity.

Perhaps true but, irrelevant to the job of finding a historical Jesus.

Quote:

3. Early Christians used "mystical" terms to describe Christ. This also included writers who regarded Jesus as historical.

Perhaps true but, irrelevant to the job of finding a historical Jesus.

Quote:

4. Paul appears to believe that Jesus was a person born as a descendent of historical people, was crucified in Jerusalem, and died at some point after Moses, possibly in his near past.

Perhaps true but, irrelevant to the job of finding a historical Jesus.

I think it is necessary to decide on what one can make the claim for historicity.

spin

11-13-2007, 09:22 PM	#1
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	PEANUT GALLERY: GakuseiDon vs. Malachi151 -- Was there a 'historical Jesus'? This thread has been set up to provide a Peanut Gallery for a FORMAL DEBATE between GakuseiDon and Malachi151 who will debate the following resolution: *"Resolved: the evidence shows that the Jesus of the letters of Paul, the Gospels and other New Testament works was a real live person."* GakuseiDon will affirm and Malachi151 will oppose. The debate will tentatively have three rounds and GakuseiDon will go first. We ask that the formal debate participants refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery until the debate is over. Enjoy the debate! - KWSN, FD Moderator

11-14-2007, 11:47 AM	#6
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Zion = Jerusalem In his point "2. Crucified in Jerusalem" GD says: "Then, he quotes scriptures to say that the stumbling block was in Zion (Jerusalem)". AFAIKT this is how he gets Paul to say that JC was crucified in Jerusalem. Is this implicit equality, Zion=Jerusalem, reasonable? (Just asking, I don't know). Gerard Stafleu

11-14-2007, 11:53 AM	#7
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	3. Lived in Paul's near past In point 3 GD argues that Jesus' resurrection must have been in Paul's recent past. Stipulating that, how is that evidence for an HJ, given that the argument seems to work equally well for a spiritual Jesus? Gerard Stafleu

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-14-2007, 12:52 PM	#8
enoch007 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 4,047	Is there not some element of corraboration inasmuch as Paul, after his conversion, had dealings with the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, ie Peter and others. Would not they also have further confirmed the existance of a real person?

11-14-2007, 01:27 PM	#9
robto Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Maryland Posts: 701	Good opening post for GD, and I'm looking forward to Malachi's response. However, I think by concentrating only on Paul, he missed out on a major line of evidence: the results of NT critical scholarship. In particular, the Q/Mark/Thomas overlaps are important, IMO.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.