Ted Hoffman

Luvluv, as a Jesus myther, I shall be glad if you posted the exact passages/ verses where Paul "makes dozens of explicit references to Jesus".

That, my friend, is where we shall start.

Btw, you seem to be holding the wrong end of the "parsimony" stick there. One of the strongest appeals and strengths of Doherty's thesis is that it is more parsimonious and has huge explanatory power. That is, compared to other approaches like "pericopes" (Crossans? - check Bede's write up) or the supernatural crap.

Ted Hoffman

Well, Luvluv?

GreggLD1

What is my "philosophical persuasion," and what is my "belief about the canonical status of the NT" ? Where does this come from? Anyway, I wasn't talking about apologists' arguments. I was talking about NON-CHRISTIAN attestation.Haven't you considered the possibility that the reference to Jesus is a later Christian interpolation?I disagree. The longer Josephus reference talks about Jesus in a very positive way. And yes, I did mean to imply that Josephus would have written about Jesus, but not "just" because he was a rabble-rouser and was crucified by Rome, which is what you're trying to get me to say. Obviously there were too many rabble-rousers who were crucified by Rome for Josephus to have known about all of them. But do you think that Jesus, if he existed, was THAT obscure? "Very adventurous? Highly speculative? "Clumsy?" To expect that Paul would have made references to just a few things that the historical Jesus said or did? OK.... :rollseyes:Yes. Not a very persuasive argument, though. In several cases, Paul is making points where a reference to Jesus' teachings on the subject would have added a great deal of authority to his pronouncements. "These false apostles are telling you that...well, here's what our Lord had to say on that matter..." (Edited to add: If all the churches Paul wrote to were just as familiar with what the historical Jesus said and did as Paul was, then why did they have any questions about matters of doctrine? Why was Paul worried about them being persuaded by false apostles? For example, the dietary laws. Jesus clearly said that it's not what goes in, but what comes out that makes one unclean. If that's what Jesus said, and everyone knew it, why was the issue of whether Christians had to hold to Jewish dietary restrictions even a matter of debate? But if it was a matter of debate anyway, why wouldn't Paul have said, "Have you forgotten what the Lord said? We have it from his own lips that there are no unclean foods." Oh well. More wild, far-out speculation.)Yes, I'm a jokester and I talk nonsense. Thanks for the compliment. Paul was trying to help these communities keep up their faith, among other things. References to how Jesus doubted, how even his own disciples fell away but were redeemed, would have been very encouraging. But, I guess this is "highly speculative." (Edited to add: In addition, it's quite an assumption that all these churches were just as familiar with the deeds and sayings of Jesus as Paul was. Paul had been to Jerusalem and spoken with people who supposedly knew Jesus personally. And in any case--why, in ALL the early extant Christian writings, even the VERY earliest, is no one writing things down about Jesus? Once Christians made the move from oral tranmission to written communication, wouldn't, at least in the very early stages, they have WRITTEN DOWN what they remembered Jesus saying and doing, and written it down as a narrative, a biography, not a mere collection of sayings? Why did they wait so long to put this stuff down on paper? Isn't that the first thing anyone does when they start communicating in a new medium--communicate the stuff they were previously communicating in the old medium? (For example, when TV was invented, many of the first programs were video versions of radio programs.) Wouldn't this have been a wonderful way to get Jesus' story out to non-Christians (and to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of new Christians)? After all, look what happened when the Gospels finally were written, became widely circulated, and began to be thought of as history. Christianity exploded and all the other mystery cults fell by the wayside.)Now I'm an idiot. But I do apologize for my misunderstanding.No, I do not want an "eyewitness account" and I do not have a "videotape criterion." I would just like one or two independent attestations to Jesus' existence outside the NT or the apologists. I agree with Doherty that Josephus is too questionable."How many witnesses do we require to accept that barest claim that there was a Jesus of Nazareth behind the stories? We have Mark, Q, and Josephus." If you didn't mean "eyewitness" I apologize for the misunderstanding.No, he's not the "final authority" (who is?) but this does not mean you can dismiss his thesis out of hand. And until you've read his arguments thoroughly, I don't know what business you have pronouncing on them.

I can tell you don't think much of me, with all your eyerolling. I hope they don't fall out of your head.

Gregg

luvluv

Sorry, Intensity, I forgot about this thread. I'll be back later today with a few references.

GreggLD1

Pre-emptive strike!!

Before you post the references, luvluv, you might want to check out "Supplementary Articles - No. 8: Christ As "Man": Does Paul Speak of Jesus as an Historical Person?" on www.jesuspuzzle.org.

Gregg

luvluv

This is off the top of my head and with a very quick look through the scriptures, but Paul mentions Jesus in Romans 3:22-26, 5:6-11, 5:15, 5:17, 5:21, 6:3-11, just to name a few.

He also mentions Jesus several times in the first chapter of Corinthians, and I'd really like to hear your take on I Corinthians 15, the entire chapter of which seems to me to work against your hypothesis. Paul seems to state explcitly that the ressurected Jesus was seen by Cephas, the twelve (which seems to indicate to me that there was a 12, but I'm not as well read in this as you guys are), to James, and 500 other people that Paul seems to be inviting the Corinthians to investigate. I'd also like to hear your take on II Corinthians 8:9. That seems to suggest an earthly personage who was poor, as the Gospels describe Jesus to have been.

I guess I could keep going, but the references are too numerous for me to even type out. Maybe I am misunderstanding what Doherty means when he says that Jesus was not mentioned in the epistles. Does he mean that very little biographical information was given about Christ? I think the notion that every great man is instantly consigned to a definitive biography by his followers might be a modern notion. All of Paul's epistles had definite pressing bussiness, and I can see why he would not give a biography of Christ to all of his constituents. There's also the definite possibility, to me at least, that Paul simply didn't KNOW a lot of the biographical detail about Jesus's life. It seems very likely to me that all he knew about Jesus was the Q sayings, His death and ressurection appearances, and what he'd picked up from various sources.

I'd also like to know what the Jesus myther's explanation is for the authorship of James, The Epistles of John, and Peter.

luvluv

Another question I have is why didn't the early enemies of Christianity simply point out that there was no such man as Jesus? Certainly Jewish persecution of Christianity began almost at it's inception, so it is certain that Jewish leaders would have been able to argue decisively and conclusively that Jesus never existed. Why didn't they ever do that? Mark claims in his gospel that the Jews typical retort to the Christian claims of the ressurection, for example, was that the Jews siad that Jesus' disciples had stolen His body, and that Mark said that this story was still being circulated by Jews at the time the gospel was written. Why would the Jews concede the existence of Jesus at all if this was in doubt? Why wouldn't they simply say there is no proof that there even was such a person? Christianity had many enemies at it's inception, why wasn't a systematic attempt to disprove the religion ever made by the Jews? Couldn't Nero, for example, have very easily produced the records proving that no one fitting the description of Christ had ever existed or been crucified? And why would the gospels name so many names, most notably Pontius Pilate, if the Jesus narrative was entirely mythical? Wouldn't they have had Jesus executed in some kind of purely Jewish lynching, totally apart from any Roman figure or institution which could be researched? Particularly a figure as prominent as Pontius Pilate. Wouldn't SOMEONE have said that Pontius Pilate never crucified anyone fitting this description?

Like I said, I'm not as well read on the matter as most of you are but it seems to involve an enormous amount of assumptions. Even if you do not believe that Jesus claimed to be Christ or God or that His historical life was anything like what the gospels proclaim, it seems far more parsimonious to me to simply assume the existence of a controversial anti-clerical Rabbi who got the wrong people pissed off at him and ended up being crucified.

Toto

I think the argument that no one in the first century disproved the existence of Jesus is missing the point.

If the early church was based on a mythological Jesus who inhabited a higher plane, and not based on a historical Jesus, it wouldn't have made any difference if an enemy of Christianity pointed out that there actually was no such person. It would be about like skeptics these days pointing out discrepancies in the Bible - it would make no difference to people who thought they had experienced Jesus for themselves.

Greg2003

Luvluv, your criticism about the jews not questioning the historicity of Jesus is an excellent one. It points out the exact nature of the problem that we have today trying to point out that the documentation points to a purely mythical Jesus. People are credulous and do not generally use critical thinking skills as thoroughly as they would like to believe they do.
When jewish authors point out that the body was more likely stolen from the tomb, they think they are being critically minded. But, in fact, they could have questioned the fundamental assertion that Jesus ever really existed. But because everyone engaged in the debate is religious, they simply don't practice basic critical thinking skills. IMHO religious thinking, regardless of what religion you're practicing retards critical thinking skills.

I would also reiterate Toto's point. It makes no difference to someone who claims they had a subjective experience of Jesus.

luvluv

Toto:

Under that logic it wouldn't have made any difference to make any counter-claim against Christianity. However, such claims were made and none of those claims were that Christ did not exist. (There is one exception, I think, but that assertion was being made by Christians and James, I think, warned agains the notion that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, labelling it as an apostasy that I believe was started by Roman Gentile converts to Christianity)

Furthermore, it seems dubious to me to account for the lack of a Jewish attack on the existence of a historical Christ on your somewhat modern notion of the futility of evidentiary arguments against religious beliefs. The point is not that these tactics would not have worked. None of the tactics the Jews used worked, but that didn't stop them from using them. The point is that, so far as I know at least, no attempt was ever made by the Jews to discredit the existence of Jesus.

So, speaking of a conspiracy of silence, what about the conspiracy of silence regarding the lack of testimony regarding the non-existance of Jesus? It is very, very hard for me to believe that if there was very little to back up the existence of Jesus, that no one would have ever tried to call attention to this fact.

Another question: is there any precedent for this kind of occurance in history? Was there ever any other figure whose existence is highly questionable and based on myth who came to be regarded as an actual historical figure by trained, qualified historians? And have historians ever caught on to their mistake on such an issue?