• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

A Question about the historicity of Jesus

arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
he_who_is_nobody said:
I have to say that what you have presented appears like a very weak rebuttal to Jesus's title. I could buy that, but I was hoping there would be a better rebuttal for such an obvious problem from the mythosist's prospective. It also does not address why his name is Yeshua and not Emanuel. As I said, one would think if one were to create a Jewish messiah, than the name of the created messiah would be Emanuel. One would think if one was trying to hit as many prothetic nails on the head, getting the name of the messiah correct seems like a big one to hit.

I don't see an obvious problem with it, the fact that Matthew states "that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled." in context of Jesus being a Nazarene. Even if we disregard the NZR exegesis, we are left with the question of why Matthew said this. Was he making up a prophecy to fix awkward facts after the matter? Maybe, but he equally could have been referencing an actual known prophecy.

The nativity may be an attempt at placing a known Nazarene in Bethlehem, but it could equally be an awkward attempt at fulfilling two contradictory prophecies. I would not consider myself a mythicist, I'm leaning on agnostic right now, but I would not say this is conclusive, and if it is the best argument for a historical Jesus, I think I will have to remain an agnostic on the matter.
Thus, linguistically, the name Yehoshua/Yeshua/Jesus conveys the idea that God (YHVH) delivers (his people).

source

In light of this it is difficult to argue that Jesus is not at very least an apt name for a saviour figure. Why not call him Emmanuel, I don't know. It could be because Jesus was a real person, but I wouldn't say that alone makes it more likely than not.
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

Paul makes no mention of Jesus - his or the twelve's - having been a teacher. He makes no mention of any earthly life of Jesus, nor does he name any who might have known Jesus in real life. His reference to Peter, etc, are only as apostles earlier than himself.

He steers clear of stating any actual life events and/or teaching of Peter's Jesus, quite possibly lest he be called-out by those who may have known more about Jesus, whether as a real person or his actual teachings. Given his knowledge of "Jesus" is only through revelatory "visions", it's clear that any real person (if they existed) of that name would have to be already dead.

Equally, he can't correct the twelve's teachings since he knew nothing of Jesus' teachings himself - as he indicates (indeed, boasts about) in Gal 1:11-20 - only what he claims are Jesus' teachings through his self-styled "revelations". He casts aspersions on Peter, etc, as an attempt to spread his own "Christianity".

The main point is that Jewish-Christianity existed prior to Paul's conversion - this was a Jewish sect led by John (the Baptist), after whom "Jesus" became the leader, aka rabbi (teacher), of whose group Peter and others were senior members, and effectively named as Jesus' emissaries.

Paul's "Christianity", which came later (and came to supersede it), is not the Jewish-Christianity of John/Jesus - it's what's now called (Pauline) Christianity.

Kindest regards,

James

I think the hypothesis you present is sound and even likely, but it is not indisputably the understanding that you get from reading the text alone. Does Paul for example relate Jesus to John the Baptist in any way?

I think it could just as easily be a dispute over the nature of a theological entity rather than a person. In fact when you look at it in such a way you don't need an explanation for why Paul fails to mention details about Jesus as a person, because he doesn't view him as such.

If this was a cult about a person it seems highly unusual not to reference the figurehead in terms of them having been a real person.

Edit: Assuming you don't postulate that Jesus was an exceptional person (a miracle worker and so forth) that he was just a rabbi in a lineage of preachers, how do you suppose he came to be God on earth, especially when you consider that deifying a man is pretty much anathema to Jews?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

Having been brought up RC in Ireland, I had a certain perspective on it all - now, after reading many books and gradually sliding towards agnostic atheism, I have a different perspective about things, particularly Paul and the RC Church.

I now see Paul as someone who attempted to set himself up as a prophet, in the OT mould - where he's inspired through revelatory visions by a divine being, "Jesus (the) Christ".

Thus, anyone who knew "Jesus" as a real person and/or his earliest followers had to be usurped by having what they taught questioned and/or supplanted.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, where - as Saul - he oppressed the Jewish-Christian community, as Paul he equally oppressed them through usurping/supplanting their teachings with his own.

He makes for a strange figure.

I realise that this article is from a particular theist's perspective but its author summarizes the contradictions between what "Jesus" taught and what Paul claimed he taught.

Paul refers to John the Baptist in Acts 19 - it's interesting to note how he turns what John says into referring to himself, rather than when John baptised Jesus: that they should believe (in) Paul, even though he baptises them in the name of Jesus Christ - he is effectively gathering his own followers.

Jesus was turned into "God on Earth" through Pauline Christianity - although Paul never says Jesus lived on Earth, it was a given for early Christians, because Jesus "was crucified" and "died for our sins".

How else could this have happened without a physical body and life?

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="SpecialFrog"/>
Dragan Glas, what about Jesus dying for our sins and rising again requires it to have happened on Earth as opposed to in a celestial realm? It's not like such realms don't exist in Jewish mythology.

I will try to find a link when not on mobile but I'd guess you can find a Carrier lecture on this on YouTube. When I saw him recently he talked a lot about other Mediterranean mystery cults of the era, all of which had a celestial being who went through an ordeal and mastered death allowing them to grant personal salvation to others. Most had allegorical stories told about them set on Earth but apart from Jesus they are all considered mythological.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

The "Virgin" Mary was considered to be a real woman and, obviously, a member of the afore-mentioned Jewish-Christian sect led by John the Baptist.

Although this is in keeping with other mythologies about gods getting "Earth girls" pregnant, it would still suggest a flesh-and-blood person existed, who was known to members of the sect.

Paul never met this person - he just claims to be contacted by him after his death.

The concept of the messiah in Judaism involved a person of the line of David - which implies a flesh-and-blood person. For the Jews, Jesus would be just a man who was considered "holy" - living according to the Law.

For Christians, of the modern Pauline doctrine, Jesus would be "God Incarnate" - not necessarily completely but certainly enough to be considered divine in nature. Hence the need for the virgin birth, etc.

Either way, you have a flesh-and-blood person.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Laurens said:
he_who_is_nobody said:
I have to say that what you have presented appears like a very weak rebuttal to Jesus's title. I could buy that, but I was hoping there would be a better rebuttal for such an obvious problem from the mythosist's prospective. It also does not address why his name is Yeshua and not Emanuel. As I said, one would think if one were to create a Jewish messiah, than the name of the created messiah would be Emanuel. One would think if one was trying to hit as many prothetic nails on the head, getting the name of the messiah correct seems like a big one to hit.

I don't see an obvious problem with it, the fact that Matthew states "that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled." in context of Jesus being a Nazarene. Even if we disregard the NZR exegesis, we are left with the question of why Matthew said this. Was he making up a prophecy to fix awkward facts after the matter? Maybe, but he equally could have been referencing an actual known prophecy.

Honestly, what is written in Matthew reads more like someone trying to bolster the claim that Yeshua is the messiah by stating that being from Nazareth is a prophecy. The author of Matthew most likely knew that most people will not be able to verify this claim since the literacy rate was so terribly low. Thus, the author, since being able to read and write, is flexing his authority by making a claim that will be terribly hard (if not impossible) to verify during the time this was written. If I am not mistaken, Matthew was written for the Gentiles and not the Jews like Mark.
Laurens said:
The nativity may be an attempt at placing a known Nazarene in Bethlehem, but it could equally be an awkward attempt at fulfilling two contradictory prophecies. I would not consider myself a mythicist, I'm leaning on agnostic right now, but I would not say this is conclusive, and if it is the best argument for a historical Jesus, I think I will have to remain an agnostic on the matter.

I guess I will make my position clear as well. I am an agnostic historicist and it is mainly because of the scholarly consensus.

To that I would say, where is the prophecy? Do you think NZR is the prophecy and why? I have never heard of this prophecy before and I have seen dozens of lists of "fulfilled prophecy of Christ" that Christians love to throw together.
Laurens said:
Thus, linguistically, the name Yehoshua/Yeshua/Jesus conveys the idea that God (YHVH) delivers (his people).

source

In light of this it is difficult to argue that Jesus is not at very least an apt name for a saviour figure. Why not call him Emmanuel, I don't know. It could be because Jesus was a real person, but I wouldn't say that alone makes it more likely than not.

As I pointed out to tuxbox in the other thread, Yeshua was a common name during Roman occupation (probably because of its meaning). Couple that with the fact that "street preaching" was also extremely common at that same time and I feel the odds weigh more in favor of a person named Yeshua at the root of these myths. At the very least it seems like what happened to Jesus is the same thing that happened to Santa, that is a real person (St. Nicolas) blended with an existing myth (Oden) to create Father Christmas.
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
he_who_is_nobody said:
Honestly, what is written in Matthew reads more like someone trying to bolster the claim that Yeshua is the messiah by stating that being from Nazareth is a prophecy. The author of Matthew most likely knew that most people will not be able to verify this claim since the literacy rate was so terribly low. Thus, the author, since being able to read and write, is flexing his authority by making a claim that will be terribly hard (if not impossible) to verify during the time this was written. If I am not mistaken, Matthew was written for the Gentiles and not the Jews like Mark.

But we cannot say with certainty either way. He could be claiming a prophecy where there was none, or he could be referring to a lesser known prophecy. I've not heard that Matthew was written for Gentiles and not Jews, but I still think it's pretty open to interpretation.
I guess I will make my position clear as well. I am an agnostic historicist and it is mainly because of the scholarly consensus.

To that I would say, where is the prophecy? Do you think NZR is the prophecy and why? I have never heard of this prophecy before and I have seen dozens of lists of "fulfilled prophecy of Christ" that Christians love to throw together.

I think it's a plausible explanation given the contrived bullshit that people read into religious texts. People are still trying to derive prophecy from the Bible to this day, in the most contrived ways imaginable. I don't see it as hugely far fetched that some Jews saw NZR and interpreted it as referencing Nazareth. Again I could be wrong, but the existence of this interpretation, which is clearly not new or unique to mythicists leaves room for doubt.
As I pointed out to tuxbox in the other thread, Yeshua was a common name during Roman occupation (probably because of its meaning). Couple that with the fact that "street preaching" was also extremely common at that same time and I feel the odds weigh more in favor of a person named Yeshua at the root of these myths. At the very least it seems like what happened to Jesus is the same thing that happened to Santa, that is a real person (St. Nicolas) blended with an existing myth (Oden) to create Father Christmas.

A common name it may have been, but its still a weak claim to say that such and such a name was common at the time therefore it wasn't made up. There could have been someone that's for sure, but there is a hell of a lot of room for doubt. I think this is the main point that the mythicists try to hit home, there is really not enough evidence to support Jesus having been more likely historical than not. I don't buy that he wasn't because we just don't have much to go on, but when it comes down to a debate over notoriously unreliable sources that reference a prophecy that may or may not have been made up as a post hoc rationalization for an awkward fact, its clear that no one really can say much either way.

I also think a case can be made from looking at Paul and noticing that he neglects to mention anything about an earthly Jesus. It just seems strange that someone went from rabbi to God and Paul wasn't that bothered about the man and what he said, only about the God and what he revealed. That just doesn't seem indicative of a personality cult that revolved around a person in living memory. It may well be that Paul didn't care about Jesus as a person, but his silence is unusual to say the least.
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

Having been brought up RC in Ireland, I had a certain perspective on it all - now, after reading many books and gradually sliding towards agnostic atheism, I have a different perspective about things, particularly Paul and the RC Church.

I now see Paul as someone who attempted to set himself up as a prophet, in the OT mould - where he's inspired through revelatory visions by a divine being, "Jesus (the) Christ".

Thus, anyone who knew "Jesus" as a real person and/or his earliest followers had to be usurped by having what they taught questioned and/or supplanted.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, where - as Saul - he oppressed the Jewish-Christian community, as Paul he equally oppressed them through usurping/supplanting their teachings with his own.

He makes for a strange figure.

I realise that this article is from a particular theist's perspective but its author summarizes the contradictions between what "Jesus" taught and what Paul claimed he taught.

Paul refers to John the Baptist in Acts 19 - it's interesting to note how he turns what John says into referring to himself, rather than when John baptised Jesus: that they should believe (in) Paul, even though he baptises them in the name of Jesus Christ - he is effectively gathering his own followers.

Jesus was turned into "God on Earth" through Pauline Christianity - although Paul never says Jesus lived on Earth, it was a given for early Christians, because Jesus "was crucified" and "died for our sins".

How else could this have happened without a physical body and life?

Kindest regards,

James

What you posit is plausible given the vast silence on the matter.

However I still find it extremely odd that Paul never unambiguously refers to a man around whom his cult supposedly was based. Even if he believed that Jesus had surpassed his earthly teachings in revelations to him, he never refers to Jesus having revealed something to him that was different to that which he taught on earth to the other apostles.

If I were to talk about a historical person who died a couple of decades ago, say Kurt Cobain (as the first thing that popped into mind). Maybe you and I have a dispute as to what a particular song lyric meant, both of us assume that he did exist, but our discussion would still reference him as an earthly person in unambiguous terms. We might say he was talking about a particular event in his life, or couldn't have meant such and such because contrary to popular belief that never happened. If I were to never refer to him in terms of his living as a person on earth, you might think this very odd. Unless we were both talking about an imaginary celestial being who wasn't a person in living memory.

This silence doesn't prove that Paul did not view Jesus as an Earthly person, he might have just been weird. But you have to concede that it is really, really odd.
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
he_who_is_nobody said:
As I pointed out to tuxbox in the other thread, Yeshua was a common name during Roman occupation (probably because of its meaning). Couple that with the fact that "street preaching" was also extremely common at that same time and I feel the odds weigh more in favor of a person named Yeshua at the root of these myths. At the very least it seems like what happened to Jesus is the same thing that happened to Santa, that is a real person (St. Nicolas) blended with an existing myth (Oden) to create Father Christmas.

As I mentioned previously it being a common name doesn't prove anything for definite. The odds do point out that someone called Yeshua was probably executed under Pontious Pilate, even several because the name was common. However if that is correct there is nothing to suppose that any one of these was the actual founder of Christianity.

Also the name may have been common because of the Messianic fervour that was prominent at the time.

With regards to the name; Yeshua, which is the same as Joshua and Jesus it rather a significant name in Messianic beliefs. Zechariah 6:11-12 says:
Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak. Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord.

We know Joshua = Jesus. So we have a Messianic prophecy (which also mentions the branch that I referenced earlier incidentally) that explicitly refers to a Jesus. As Richard Carrier notes, if this prophecy were linked with the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 (which appears to be the case) you've basically got Christianity.

If you read Carrier's book (who puts forth the case with far more evidence and explanation than I can) you will quickly see that Jesus as a deity can be almost entirely derived out of scripture (some not OT, but considered scripture at the time). These prophecies also go to show that Messianic beliefs did refer to someone who would suffer and die for sins, contrary to the popular "Jews would never believe that" argument.
 
arg-fallbackName="thenexttodie"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

As I've said elsewhere, Paul was what would today be referred to as a "wannabe" in America - someone who's desperate to be part of the group (Jewish Christians) but whose ideas, claims, teachings, etc, were in contradiction to what "Jesus" and his disciples taught.

Paul never met "Jesus" - except for in his alleged visions of which he is the sole arbiter.

In other books besides the gospels - such as James - Jewish traditions are upheld by "Jesus" and his teachings. This is clearly contradicted by Paul's teachings, which he claims to have had from "Jesus" in his revelatory visions. Paul dismisses Peter (Cephas) and James, along with their teachings, despite these having been from a "Jesus", whom they knew, according to Paul (Gal 2, and 1 and 2 Cor).

For Paul, according to him, he was following the true "Jesus (Christ)", whereas "the twelve" were following a false one.

It is clear that there was a preacher of whom Peter, James, John, et al were followers with whose teachings (the apostles') Paul disagreed. As a Pharisee, he followed the oral Talmud, rather than the Torah, which is what the apostles (and their "Jesus") taught.

Dragan Glas, it seems that every time you talk about the Bible, almost every thing you say is entirely wrong.

No Jesus did not hold to Jewish traditions, in fact that's one reason why the Jewish Pharisees wanted him dead.

No Paul did not believe the other apostles were the apostles of a false Christ. But he criticized Peter for being a Jew who lives like a Gentile and tells Gentiles they should live like Jews.
So when Peter, for example, would refuse to eat with Gentiles, Paul could say "Hey! You and Jesus ate together with the Gentiles. Why do you refuse to eat with them now? Was that a different Jesus who you ate together with the uncircumcised?"

No it wasn't because Paul followed the Talmud and the Jesus followed the Torah. The Talmud condemns eating with Gentiles. Jesus and Paul both did this.

Dragan Glas, You seem to spread a lot of misinformation about the Bible. If you wish to debate me on any on any of these claims I say you are wrong about, I suggest it to be done in a formal debate. I think that would be the best way of showing everybody how retarded you are.
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
thenexttodie said:
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

As I've said elsewhere, Paul was what would today be referred to as a "wannabe" in America - someone who's desperate to be part of the group (Jewish Christians) but whose ideas, claims, teachings, etc, were in contradiction to what "Jesus" and his disciples taught.

Paul never met "Jesus" - except for in his alleged visions of which he is the sole arbiter.

In other books besides the gospels - such as James - Jewish traditions are upheld by "Jesus" and his teachings. This is clearly contradicted by Paul's teachings, which he claims to have had from "Jesus" in his revelatory visions. Paul dismisses Peter (Cephas) and James, along with their teachings, despite these having been from a "Jesus", whom they knew, according to Paul (Gal 2, and 1 and 2 Cor).

For Paul, according to him, he was following the true "Jesus (Christ)", whereas "the twelve" were following a false one.

It is clear that there was a preacher of whom Peter, James, John, et al were followers with whose teachings (the apostles') Paul disagreed. As a Pharisee, he followed the oral Talmud, rather than the Torah, which is what the apostles (and their "Jesus") taught.

Dragan Glas, it seems that every time you talk about the Bible, almost every thing you say is entirely wrong.

No Jesus did not hold to Jewish traditions, in fact that's one reason why the Jewish Pharisees wanted him dead.

No Paul did not believe the other apostles were the apostles of a false Christ. But he criticized Peter for being a Jew who lives like a Gentile and tells Gentiles they should live like Jews.
So when Peter, for example, would refuse to eat with Gentiles, Paul could say "Hey! You and Jesus ate together with the Gentiles. Why do you refuse to eat with them now? Was that a different Jesus who you ate together with the uncircumcised?"

No it wasn't because Paul followed the Talmud and the Jesus followed the Torah. The Talmud condemns eating with Gentiles. Jesus and Paul both did this.

Dragan Glas, You seem to spread a lot of misinformation about the Bible. If you wish to debate me on any on any of these claims I say you are wrong about, I suggest it to be done in a formal debate. I think that would be the best way of showing everybody how retarded you are.

That's a bit off topic for this thread.

What do you think is the best evidence for the historicity of Jesus?
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
thenexttodie said:
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

As I've said elsewhere, Paul was what would today be referred to as a "wannabe" in America - someone who's desperate to be part of the group (Jewish Christians) but whose ideas, claims, teachings, etc, were in contradiction to what "Jesus" and his disciples taught.

Paul never met "Jesus" - except for in his alleged visions of which he is the sole arbiter.

In other books besides the gospels - such as James - Jewish traditions are upheld by "Jesus" and his teachings. This is clearly contradicted by Paul's teachings, which he claims to have had from "Jesus" in his revelatory visions. Paul dismisses Peter (Cephas) and James, along with their teachings, despite these having been from a "Jesus", whom they knew, according to Paul (Gal 2, and 1 and 2 Cor).

For Paul, according to him, he was following the true "Jesus (Christ)", whereas "the twelve" were following a false one.

It is clear that there was a preacher of whom Peter, James, John, et al were followers with whose teachings (the apostles') Paul disagreed. As a Pharisee, he followed the oral Talmud, rather than the Torah, which is what the apostles (and their "Jesus") taught.
Dragan Glas, it seems that every time you talk about the Bible, almost every thing you say is entirely wrong.
Perhaps it is you who is wrong because it appears you have not read what I've actually said.
thenexttodie said:
No Jesus did not hold to Jewish traditions, in fact that's one reason why the Jewish Pharisees wanted him dead.
Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees that they put more store in the letter of the law than in its spirit - that they put more store in the washing of hands than in "honouring your father and mother". That doesn't mean he doesn't abide by Jewish traditions - as I noted when I mentioned the book of James.
thenexttodie said:
No Paul did not believe the other apostles were the apostles of a false Christ. But he criticized Peter for being a Jew who lives like a Gentile and tells Gentiles they should live like Jews.
So when Peter, for example, would refuse to eat with Gentiles, Paul could say "Hey! You and Jesus ate together with the Gentiles. Why do you refuse to eat with them now? Was that a different Jesus who you ate together with the uncircumcised?"
This has nothing to do with to what I was referring.

Paul believed that he had direct contact with Jesus in spirit - he said that Peter (and James) had nothing of value to teach him - it was in this regard that he dismissed them.

The problem is that what Paul's Jesus says - according to Paul - is different from that of Peter, James, etc. From Paul's claims, it's as if they're following a different ("false") Jesus. [See the linked article in my above post where the differences are listed.]

At no point did I mention what you're talking about.

[And you forget the "vision" Peter had regarding the food from heaven, after which he abided with the gentile Roman centurion and his friends.]
thenexttodie said:
No it wasn't because Paul followed the Talmud and the Jesus followed the Torah. The Talmud condemns eating with Gentiles. Jesus and Paul both did this.
Paul's self-appointed "mission" was to preach to the gentiles - to gather his own followers in Jesus' name.

Originally, Jesus' stated "mission" was to preach to Jews - but later, as with the Samaritan woman, he "abided with" the Samaritans for two days, according to the bible.

At no point did I say he didn't.

Remember also that the NT was a story shaped for Christians (and against Jews) - we don't know, with any certainty, what is true or not in it.
thenexttodie said:
Dragan Glas, You seem to spread a lot of misinformation about the Bible. If you wish to debate me on any on any of these claims I say you are wrong about, I suggest it to be done in a formal debate. I think that would be the best way of showing everybody how retarded you are.
I already showed earlier with Peter's vision that you didn't know what you were talking about.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="thenexttodie"/>
Laurens said:
That's a bit off topic for this thread.

What do you think is the best evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

The best evidence would have to do with something not directly related to proving the historicity of Jesus.

That there is no evidence for the historicity of the supposed conspirators who invented a falsehood of a "Jesus who never was", is therefore the best evidence of the historicity of Jesus That is why Carrier like arguments don't work. Who were these people? What were their names? What documents do we have attesting to their existence?
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
thenexttodie said:
Laurens said:
That's a bit off topic for this thread.

What do you think is the best evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

The best evidence would have to do with something not directly related to proving the historicity of Jesus.

That there is no evidence for the historicity of the supposed conspirators who invented a falsehood of a "Jesus who never was", is therefore the best evidence of the historicity of Jesus That is why Carrier like arguments don't work. Who were these people? What were their names? What documents do we have attesting to their existence?

I see what you are getting at. I don't think anybody advocates that it was a group of people who sat down and decided 'lets make up a guy and worship him as a God'.

The basic concept is that due to the Roman occupation of Judea and the corruption of the temple elites, a certain sub set of Messianic Jews began to solve the problem by looking to scripture for a Messiah who would absolve their sins, without them continually having to rely on the corrupt temple cult.

In Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and Zechariah 6, they found a depiction of a Messianic figure who would suffer and die as an atonement for the sins of Israel and would rise again, whom they called Yeshua (from Zechariah). They began to view this celestial being as a means for God to dwell directly with the faithful who accepted this death and resurrection thus negating any reliance on the temple.

Figures like Paul reference this celestial entity as appearing to him in revelation and through scripture. He never refers to Jesus unambiguously as a historical person.

Eventually, probably to derive some extra authority some sects of Christians began to historicise Jesus, so that they could say "well our guys trace back to the actual historical person" and thus the historical Jesus was born.

This is obviously a very brief over view of the hypothesis, but hopefully its clear that it was supposed as a long and gradual evolution, rather than a cabal of people sitting down to invent someone from scratch.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
thenexttodie said:
Laurens said:
That's a bit off topic for this thread.

What do you think is the best evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

The best evidence would have to do with something not directly related to proving the historicity of Jesus.

That there is no evidence for the historicity of the supposed conspirators who invented a falsehood of a "Jesus who never was", is therefore the best evidence of the historicity of Jesus That is why Carrier like arguments don't work. Who were these people? What were their names? What documents do we have attesting to their existence?

Since we do not have the names of the conspirators who sat down and invented Heracles, Gilgamesh, and Achilles does that mean those fictional characters are based on true stories too?
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

The "Virgin" Mary was considered to be a real woman and, obviously, a member of the afore-mentioned Jewish-Christian sect led by John the Baptist.

Paul never refers to Mary, the first mention is in Mark---who is positing a historical Jesus, so he could easily have invented a mother, or be referring to a tradition that referenced his mother...
Although this is in keeping with other mythologies about gods getting "Earth girls" pregnant, it would still suggest a flesh-and-blood person existed, who was known to members of the sect.

Not to Paul though. He doesn't mention Mary at all. She might well have been alive at the time of his epistles, but he doesn't mention her. Not that he necessarily would, but you can't claim that early Christians knew about Mary. Where do they say this?
Paul never met this person - he just claims to be contacted by him after his death.

The concept of the messiah in Judaism involved a person of the line of David - which implies a flesh-and-blood person. For the Jews, Jesus would be just a man who was considered "holy" - living according to the Law.

Paul mentions Jesus being made (using the same word he uses to refer to Adam as having been made) of the sperm of David. If we look at Ascension of Isaiah it refers to Jesus coming down to the firmament to be killed by Satan. It's quite plausible that early Christians believed that when Jesus came down to the firmament he took on a Davidic body and was then executed by Satan and his demons. Redactors later inserted Jesus coming to earth into the text, but it's clear that this is an interpolation---probably because what the Ascension of Isaiah said was problematic for the historicists.
For Christians, of the modern Pauline doctrine, Jesus would be "God Incarnate" - not necessarily completely but certainly enough to be considered divine in nature. Hence the need for the virgin birth, etc.

Either way, you have a flesh-and-blood person.

Kindest regards,

James

Not necessarily. You may have a Jesus taking on a flesh and blood body in order to complete the sacrifice, but it wasn't necessary that it took place on earth. Jewish cosmology referred to things happening in the firmament all the time (the space between Earth and the moon). Indeed the Ascension of Isaiah confirms that this may have been the case.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
Laurens said:
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

The "Virgin" Mary was considered to be a real woman and, obviously, a member of the afore-mentioned Jewish-Christian sect led by John the Baptist.

Paul never refers to Mary, the first mention is in Mark---who is positing a historical Jesus, so he could easily have invented a mother, or be referring to a tradition that referenced his mother...
Although this is in keeping with other mythologies about gods getting "Earth girls" pregnant, it would still suggest a flesh-and-blood person existed, who was known to members of the sect.

Not to Paul though. He doesn't mention Mary at all. She might well have been alive at the time of his epistles, but he doesn't mention her. Not that he necessarily would, but you can't claim that early Christians knew about Mary. Where do they say this?
The Synoptic Gospels mention Mary 1 2, the earliest being Mark (65-73 CE).
Laurens said:
Paul never met this person - he just claims to be contacted by him after his death.

The concept of the messiah in Judaism involved a person of the line of David - which implies a flesh-and-blood person. For the Jews, Jesus would be just a man who was considered "holy" - living according to the Law.
Paul mentions Jesus being made (using the same word he uses to refer to Adam as having been made) of the sperm of David. If we look at Ascension of Isaiah it refers to Jesus coming down to the firmament to be killed by Satan. It's quite plausible that early Christians believed that when Jesus came down to the firmament he took on a Davidic body and was then executed by Satan and his demons. Redactors later inserted Jesus coming to earth into the text, but it's clear that this is an interpolation---probably because what the Ascension of Isaiah said was problematic for the historicists.
The Docetists held that Jesus was a divine being who only appeared to be human - at the other extreme, the Ebionites (though there's some dispute as to whom they were and their actual beliefs) held that Jesus was wholly human, and not supernatural, much as the Jews believe.

Needless to say, all such beliefs - including Valentinianism, Marcionism and Manichaeism - were declared heretical, with the result that the Western Church's doctrine was Pauline.
Laurens said:
For Christians, of the modern Pauline doctrine, Jesus would be "God Incarnate" - not necessarily completely but certainly enough to be considered divine in nature. Hence the need for the virgin birth, etc.

Either way, you have a flesh-and-blood person.

Kindest regards,

James
Not necessarily. You may have a Jesus taking on a flesh and blood body in order to complete the sacrifice, but it wasn't necessary that it took place on earth. Jewish cosmology referred to things happening in the firmament all the time (the space between Earth and the moon). Indeed the Ascension of Isaiah confirms that this may have been the case.
As I mentioned, Docetism was declared a heresy.

The simplest answer, assuming there was a real person behind "Jesus", is that there was a mere mortal man - as the Ebionites (and Jews) believed.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
I'm afraid I can't quote you because my phone isn't displaying the quotes correctly.

With regards to Mark mentioning Mary, this is indeed the case but doesn't add anything to the debate because Mark places Jesus on earth as a historical person. He could have invented Mary or referred to someone who had invented her to advance the idea that Jesus was a historical person.

This doesn't require a historical figure. Mary could have been invented between Paul's epistles and Mark.

I don't think it is accurate to say that the Western church is entirely Pauline. It is inasmuch as it doesn't require it's followers to be circumcised and follow Jewish law, but the Western church is undoubtedly historicist, something that is lacking in Paul who at best is unconcerned whether Jesus was historical.

Give the historicist position of orthodoxy it's understandable that they declared opposing views as heresy. It doesn't make them right and it definitely doesn't mean that there was a guy behind it all.

The simplest answer is in fact that we have nothing that declares beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed. He may have done but the arguments that you have put forth certainly don't demonstrate that.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
Laurens said:
I'm afraid I can't quote you because my phone isn't displaying the quotes correctly.

With regards to Mark mentioning Mary, this is indeed the case but doesn't add anything to the debate because Mark places Jesus on earth as a historical person. He could have invented Mary or referred to someone who had invented her to advance the idea that Jesus was a historical person.

This doesn't require a historical figure. Mary could have been invented between Paul's epistles and Mark.

I don't think it is accurate to say that the Western church is entirely Pauline. It is inasmuch as it doesn't require it's followers to be circumcised and follow Jewish law, but the Western church is undoubtedly historicist, something that is lacking in Paul who at best is unconcerned whether Jesus was historical.

Give the historicist position of orthodoxy it's understandable that they declared opposing views as heresy. It doesn't make them right and it definitely doesn't mean that there was a guy behind it all.

The simplest answer is in fact that we have nothing that declares beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed. He may have done but the arguments that you have put forth certainly don't demonstrate that.
There is the story that Mary, when a teenager, was impregnated by a Roman soldier - possibly one "Pantera" - and, as a result, a widower (Joseph) was chosen (according to Jewish custom) to be the baby's step-father.

I grant that this is speculation but it at least is in keeping with Jewish custom.

Then there's this.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,
Laurens said:
I'm afraid I can't quote you because my phone isn't displaying the quotes correctly.

With regards to Mark mentioning Mary, this is indeed the case but doesn't add anything to the debate because Mark places Jesus on earth as a historical person. He could have invented Mary or referred to someone who had invented her to advance the idea that Jesus was a historical person.

This doesn't require a historical figure. Mary could have been invented between Paul's epistles and Mark.

I don't think it is accurate to say that the Western church is entirely Pauline. It is inasmuch as it doesn't require it's followers to be circumcised and follow Jewish law, but the Western church is undoubtedly historicist, something that is lacking in Paul who at best is unconcerned whether Jesus was historical.

Give the historicist position of orthodoxy it's understandable that they declared opposing views as heresy. It doesn't make them right and it definitely doesn't mean that there was a guy behind it all.

The simplest answer is in fact that we have nothing that declares beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed. He may have done but the arguments that you have put forth certainly don't demonstrate that.
There is the story that Mary, when a teenager, was impregnated by a Roman soldier - possibly one "Pantera" - and, as a result, a widower (Joseph) was chosen (according to Jewish custom) to be the baby's step-father.

I grant that this is speculation but it at least is in keeping with Jewish custom.

Then there's this.

Kindest regards,

James

Origen mentions this Jesus Ben Panthera in Origen Against Celsus:
But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;" and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation, might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but one the vilest and most disgraceful of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say "all"), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.

Source

So we know that this comes from Jewish anti-Christian rhetoric which was reported in the 2nd century.

We also find this Jesus Ben Pandera (or Ben Stada) in the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud however was composed between the 3rd and 5th centuries, which is plenty of time for them to have devised a polemic against Christianity which mock's their belief in a virgin Mary by staying she slept with a Roman soldier.

All we can say then is that by the 2nd century at the time Origen wrote against Celsus Jews were mocking Christianity by claiming that Jesus was born of an unfaithful union (Ben Stada means 'Son of the Unfaithful'). This really doesn't prove anything as it could have arisen long after the Gospels became widely circulated.

What is interesting however is that Carrier links this Talmudic Jesus, to the Jesus of the Nazorean sect---a sect of Torah observant Christians whom Epiphanius refers to as believing in a Jesus who was executed under Alexander Jannaeus a whole century before the Gospels place his death (On The Historicity Of Jesus page 282-283). One has to ask why if Jesus were a real historical figure he was believed to have lived at such a radically different time by a sect of Torah observant Christians (who may thus have been able to trace their lineage back to Peter and John etc. before Paul's dismissal of Torah observance). It seems odd. If Jesus were real, surely at the very least people could agree on when he died. This is difficult to explain on historicity, but easy enough to explain on mythicism (this could simply be two separate attempts at euhemerization, or one could be a response to the other ['actually our Jesus lived before yours so there']).
 
Back
Top