NOGO

We need to keep all posibilities open.
I tend to believe that Jesus did exist but that he was not the founder of the Christian movement. His story was "picked-up" on the way.

Granted I did not come to this conclusion based on massive evidence. I am just saying that perhaps we should not discount other possibilities than the "An HJ was at the root of the Christian movement".

joedad

I fail to see anything advantageous in making such a distinction. But maybe you've invented a new argument. I am curious as to how you would categorize such a position. Please fill in the blank:

Mine is an argument from ________.

joe

Radorth

Moved from another thread because I felt it and my answer fit better here.

Criminy. I already gave you a direct reference to Pilate, and Peter's experience on the "holy mount" and someone pointed out a clear reference to the Last Supper in Corinthians, and the unmistakeable reference to "the brother of the Lord."

Here are some more references in the epistles to somebody who we are assured never existed:

1 Pet 2:23 "....when they heaped insults, he did not retaliate, and when he suffered, he did not threaten..."

1 Pet 3:18 "...that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit."

1 John 1:1-2. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with out eyes, and which our hands have handled....that which we have seen and heard we declare to you.

Heb 12:3 "...for consider him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself."

You know when you apply the skeptics maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," Doherty's theory doesn't look so good. He is basically claiming 10 people or so all colluded together to spread this huge lie. (or alternately that they were decieved by a single source I suppose).

Not sure how they did it without cell phones. They must have had hundreds of runners going back and forth, trying to get the story straight. How amazing Paul and Peter, who spent so little time together managed to write such consistent epistles, ain't it. Like Durant said, this hoax "would have been a greater miracle than anything recorded in the Gospels."


Radorth

Layman

Well, they kept records of the actions of their various rulers and Roman business. And since much of the TF is about Jesus' execution under a Roman leader, it's not unlikely that there was a record of it.

Layman

Does any of that "large body of historical information" -- I presume you mean nonChristian -- mention Peter or Paul? After all, their ministries were ten times as long as Jesus. They travelled to many more places than Jesus did. They gained many more adherents than Jesus did. Or James? Who lead a sect of Jews in Jerusalem for apparently 10 times as long as Jesus lead anyone (especially when Jesus' ministry was in the much less important Galilee?). Or John the Baptist? Who is mentioned in no other place than Josephus and Christian works and whose ministry -- at least in Jewish eyes -- was probably pretty similar to Jesus'?

Or are you claiming that Paul, Peter, James, and John the Baptist did not exist on this basis either?

Layman

Speaking only for myself ....

My irritation level correlates with the lameness of the opposing arguments or debator. When I argue with Toto about things he knows nothing about -- like "Matthew's census" -- I get very irritated. When I argue with Kirby about the Testimonium Flaviniaum, I actually enjoy myself very much -- because he is an intelligent and articulate person to discuss issues with.

Layman

Well, I've already expressed reasons why Josephus probably did not rely on a Chrsitain source. But even if your unsupported speculation is correct and Josephus learned of Jesus while in Judea, this means that Palestinian Jewish Christians were preaching a historical Jesus crucified under Pilate to other Jews shortly after Jesus' death in the city were he was alleged to have been executed.

Radorth

Please name those you haven't seen it in that we may mimic their lack of passion, which is apparently one proof of intelligence here. I dunno. I've seen Dawkins sound a little hot under the collar, as much as Bede anyway. I remember being surprised at Dawkins saying how patient atheists have been and how mad it made him to see so many people praying together after Sept 11. Apparently atheist anger is somehow more righteous, and they are far more patient by definition. Me I figure we're pretty much all pots and kettles, or (pardon the expression) sinners.

I agree with Layman. There are skeptics I do well with and some I don't. In my case it depends a lot on their sense of humor. I had a skeptic roast me once in a mildly sarcastic way, and I thought it was really very funny. Even me and AM do OK, considering the gulf between our world-views.

You do have one, don't you AM? Lord knows the lowly Radorth has never been able to connect the dots.

Maybe he's more patient than I realize, and vice versa.

Radorth

Iasion

Greetings Radorth et al,

But,
not one of your references stands up to scrutiny Radorth - they are all as weak as water.


Radorth wrote :

There are NO references to Pilate until a CENTURY after the alleged events - not ONE SINGLE Christian shows any knowledge of Pilate until the early-mid 2nd century - thats several generations after the alleged events.

This is NO evidence at all for a historical Jesus.

Check my Timeline page on
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html" target="_blank">References to Gospel names and events</a>


An account of a SPIRITUAL experience, written by someone other than Peter, several generations after the alleged events.

This is not evidence of any historical Jesus at all.


Mithras shared a very similar Last Supper with his followers - do you believe that makes Mithras a historical figure?
Paul's mention of the Last Supper (even if authentic) is similarly mythic in tone, describing what he "received" from visions.

This is NO evidence for any historical Jesus.


So what? This vague phrase means little more than a "devout person" - even YOU could be called such if you did a good job in church one day.

This is NO evidence for a historical Jesus.


Hmmm - an epistle FORGED in the name of Peter, written generations after the events - such is the stuff of Christian belief.

These comments make no reference to a historical setting - they are archetypal qualities which could just as easily refer to a spiritual being.

There are figures in Greek myth who show similar forbearance - does that make them historical?
Attis allowed himself to die after being cut - do you think references to this event make Attis a historical figure?

No, these comments are not evidence for a historical Jesus.


i.e. the Iesous Christos, a spiritual being, is deadened by being incarnated in humans.

This is no evidence for a historical Jesus.


1 John is a profoundly Gnostic work, the comments you cite express the joy which the writer has just experienced in a spiritual experience.

These comments have nothing to do with a historical Jesus.


Hebrews is full of esoteric and spiritual terminology for those who have personally "been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the Powers of the Aions"

There is not the slightest hint it is refering to a historical person.

This is no evidence at all for a historical Jesus.


Hmm ..
have you actually READ Earl's thesis? It doesn't sound like it -

He NEVER claimed "collusion" or that it was a "huge lie".

If you want to debate these issues, it behooves you to actually read and understand what the argument is.

He argues that a spiritual Iesous Christos best explains the evidence we have - then LATER Christians, after Jerusalem had been erased, mis-understood the early references as historical.

Probably some did lie later on - the Christian record is FULL of forgeries over the later centuries - doesn't the obvious evidence of numerous and wide-spread FORGERIES in the Christian record tell you something?


There are some consistencies and there are some contradictions - the early Christians shared some beliefs and argued about others - I fail to see any point to your comment - some consistency is to be expected - so what?


Quentin David Jones

Radorth

While reading a quote from Doherty posted by Toto, I ran across this:

"There are huge discrepancies between Acts and what Paul tells us in his letters."

That's all he says, and I suspect more hyperbole, but OK, if this is so, then Doherty gets a point. All I've read is that there is a disagreement about who Paul was fleeing from. Will someone kindly indulge the slow of learning and tell us what they are?

Radorth