Was Jesus Real?

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

There is a difference between the Catholic and Protestant (particularly US) perspectives on God - the former is a "God of the Philosophers", the latter, a "God of Scripture".

Having been both I can tell you that you are wrong. If you distil the concept down to only root concepts, you are more accurate, yet you are missing the many millions of people that do not boil it down...

The differences are there, nevertheless.

As a RC, I was never told to pray to God to "intervene" in events, such is considered selfish - I could pray for "guidance", "wisdom", "(inner) strength", "patience", etc.

As you say, at base there is a distinction in the two sects' perspectives, to which I was referring - although the average Christian may not be aware of it.

This is indeed where the problem lies - particularly for "literalists", though they appear completely unaware of it.

In the NT, for example, scholars are aware of two threads of Christianity - that of Jesus and that of Paul.

If you are referring to different and oft-times contradicting "threads," then you are again wrong. Since the creation of the bible scholars have been debating the various different accounts contained within the one book. Each of the "gospels" contains material that flatly contradicts the others.

If you are referring to the idea that one person, Paul, wrote one portion and a handful of contemporaries wrote others, you are again wrong. There is precious little cohesion and much of the NT spends pages contradicting other portions from a historical standpoint. That is why your stated "consensus" forced you to use the word "implied," because no historian worthy of the title would place their credibility on the line with such flimsy evidence. This has been a known and agonising struggle for the church since the second century.

On the contrary, scholars are aware of the dichotomy between Paul's and Jesus' message.

Here's a excerpt from Robert Beckford's, The Secret Family Of Jesus:



As you can see, Paul's "Christianity" differed markedly from the early leaders and original apostles of Jesus, such as James, and Peter.

Then, there's John the Baptist:



Actually, Beckford's series is well-worth watching.

Episode 1 - parts 1 through 6
Episode 2 - parts 1 through 6

Still looking for the rest...

Although Ehrman's research shows the amount of gospels that were discarded, the fact that they were shows that some form of "tradition" was being applied as a filter.

Politics was the filter. Attempting to keep writings that had attracted the largest followings while also keeping page count low was the only "tradition" being observed, not counting the numerous and ridiculous attributations to the christ myth. Some still made it in, note virgin birth and resurrection, but that was because of the fact that these writings had developed strong followings. This isn't a surprise, Greeks, Egyptians, and others had all proved these stories to be a good model for gaining followers.

One could argue that a "tradition", which is based on what's politically expedient, is still a "tradition" - although that is not the whole story.

There are key events - such as the crucifixion, to name one - which are accepted by historians as evidence of Jesus' historicity.

You'd have to read a number of authors on the topic - including Ehrman, who's in no doubt about the matter - to gain a fuller understanding of what and why historians accept Jesus as an historical figure.

The most often cited reason for accepting the crucifixion is that "some crucifixions happened and therefore likely did here." This holds no more water than people believing in astrology because it has been used before. No body. No grave. No proof. No records. No diaries. No orders. No nothing. There is nothing for a historian to cite. Why then, doesn't this give you pause?

Sidenote: Going through a split with my wife for a month now, I'll get those cites up when I have access to my boxed belongings.

If that's the case, the question you should ask is "Why, then, doesn't this give historians pause?"

As I've mentioned earlier, most historians accept the historicity of Jesus - not just Christian/biblical/ecclesiastical historians, but non-Christian and atheist historians.

Granted, there are those who, like Pagels, may claim that they don't know.

But the question I'd ask is: can you name any reputable historians who actively deny the historicity of Jesus?

Side note: I'm sorry to hear of your marital problems - dare I say that I hope everything will turn out well for all of you?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DeistPaladin]

Greetings,
There is a difference between the Catholic and Protestant (particularly US) perspectives on God - the former is a "God of the Philosophers", the latter, a "God of Scripture".

There are Catholics in America too. I've dated quite a few. The ones here believe in a personal god. I suspect we're dealing with different definitions of the term "personal god". I define it as one who answers prayers, wants worship and/or judges us in the afterlife. The very theology of Christianity would seem to depend on there being a personal god.

In the NT, for example, scholars are aware of two threads of Christianity - that of Jesus and that of Paul.

Quote a few more than two, actually. The Ebionite-esque Christianity of Matthew, the Johninne Trinitarian Christianity, the Christianity that featured a Jesus who was separate from and subserviant to Yahweh of the Synoptics, etc. Which one the "historical Jesus" advocated, if he existed at all, is up for grabs since said hypothetical character never wrote down his teachings.

The point I was making was that your earlier post implied that Docetism may have pre-dated Christianity - it did not. Also, see my next point.

Still waiting for evidence for that assertion.

Although Ehrman's research shows the amount of gospels that were discarded, the fact that they were shows that some form of "tradition" was being applied as a filter.

"John" is the clearest indication of a "orthodox" Christianity which had already developed before it was written down (around the turn of the first century), as Pagels Beyond Belief shows.

The Johninne Gospel is very different from the Synoptic Gospels that came before it. Search the Synoptics in vein for any sign that Jesus is one with God. These Gospel accounts feature a Jesus that prays to God in the second person, a booming voice introduces Jesus in the third person and speaks to Jesus in the second person, and Jesus flatly states that he is subordinate to Yahweh ("not my will but thy will be done").

Trinitarian Christianity is a later development, as indicated by the earliest of Gospel accounts.

See above.

*Looks* Nope. If it's there, I guess I missed it.

There are key events - such as the crucifixion, to name one - which are accepted by historians as evidence of Jesus' historicity.

The crucifixion is the ONLY event that carries any kind of verification independent of Christian mythology. And even this, from the Annals of Tacitus, is an oblique and late (2nd century) mention that doesn't even call Jesus by name. Assuming this passage wasn't an interpolation (and there has been some recent evidence of tampering), for all we know, Tacitus could have been passing along information that he'd heard from the Christians and accepted it at face value since Pilate killed a lot of Jewish leaders. Tacitus seemed to have no interest in the resurrection account, a point that should have piqued a Roman's attention, since a condemned criminal being seen walking about later among the Jewish people would have been a most noteworthy point.

You'd have to read a number of authors on the topic - including Ehrman, who's in no doubt about the matter - to gain a fuller understanding of what and why historians accept Jesus as an historical figure.

Bart Ehrman was pressed to provide the reason that he believed in a historical Jesus during an interview on The Infidel Guy. After 30 minutes of avoidance, ducking and weaving, he finally offered up the Bible as his rationale. I call this the "Scholars-Say-Shuffle".

Appeals to authority are unconvincing to me because even authorities are required to provide reasons for what they believe.

 

[DeistPaladin]

Greetings,
As a RC, I was never told to pray to God to "intervene" in events, such is considered selfish - I could pray for "guidance", "wisdom", "(inner) strength", "patience", etc.

You described a personal god.

 

[alimck]

I'd prepared to believe there was a man named Jesus living around 2000 years ago.

I could also stretch to the belief that he was a successful preacher with many followers and disciples and (for the time) he may have been executed for it.

I find it hard to believe that the Jewish supreme council convened on Passover Eve to talk about/plot getting rid of such a person or that Ponchus Pilate tried to save him in some way or indeed was part of the execution.

And I would go so far to say that he did not walk on water, raise people from the dead, split 5/7 loaves of bread between 4000 people, heal the sick or rise from the dead and fly off into the sky.

To quote Brasseye, it 'reads like the ramblings of a drugged horse'

I think the simpler and therefore more likely solution (Occams razor) is that these are exaggerated stories. Things that started out as all being parable and slowly evolved into something more. Happens all the time in the modern day because of the internet. Check out the Snopes website.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,
There is a difference between the Catholic and Protestant (particularly US) perspectives on God - the former is a "God of the Philosophers", the latter, a "God of Scripture".

There are Catholics in America too. I've dated quite a few. The ones here believe in a personal god. I suspect we're dealing with different definitions of the term "personal god". I define it as one who answers prayers, wants worship and/or judges us in the afterlife. The very theology of Christianity would seem to depend on there being a personal god.

By "personal God" I'm referring to the (American) Protestant belief in an interventionist God - "The building would have fallen on me - but God stretched forth His Hand and ....".

This is not the sort of thing that Catholics believe happens.

In the NT, for example, scholars are aware of two threads of Christianity - that of Jesus and that of Paul.

Quote a few more than two, actually. The Ebionite-esque Christianity of Matthew, the Johninne Trinitarian Christianity, the Christianity that featured a Jesus who was separate from and subserviant to Yahweh of the Synoptics, etc. Which one the "historical Jesus" advocated, if he existed at all, is up for grabs since said hypothetical character never wrote down his teachings.

Since Pauline Christianity is the one that has predominated throughout the 2000 years of this religion, it is the one which most clearly is seen in the NT - and how it differs from what Jesus is reported as saying/implying in the NT.

The point I was making was that your earlier post implied that Docetism may have pre-dated Christianity - it did not. Also, see my next point.

Still waiting for evidence for that assertion.

I see I'll have to take this one step at a time.

Are you actually claiming that Docetism pre-dates Christianity?

Although Ehrman's research shows the amount of gospels that were discarded, the fact that they were shows that some form of "tradition" was being applied as a filter.

"John" is the clearest indication of a "orthodox" Christianity which had already developed before it was written down (around the turn of the first century), as Pagels Beyond Belief shows.

The Johninne Gospel is very different from the Synoptic Gospels that came before it. Search the Synoptics in vein for any sign that Jesus is one with God. These Gospel accounts feature a Jesus that prays to God in the second person, a booming voice introduces Jesus in the third person and speaks to Jesus in the second person, and Jesus flatly states that he is subordinate to Yahweh ("not my will but thy will be done").

Trinitarian Christianity is a later development, as indicated by the earliest of Gospel accounts.

What you've posted here does not change the end-result: the Johaninne Gospel is the "traditional" view of Jesus which has been passed down throughout the intervening 1900 years.

This "tradition" was written down at the turn of the first century, which clearly indicates that it had been decided during the last quarter or fifth of the first century.

See above.

*Looks* Nope. If it's there, I guess I missed it.

I'll await your answer to my above question.

There are key events - such as the crucifixion, to name one - which are accepted by historians as evidence of Jesus' historicity.

The crucifixion is the ONLY event that carries any kind of verification independent of Christian mythology. And even this, from the Annals of Tacitus, is an oblique and late (2nd century) mention that doesn't even call Jesus by name. Assuming this passage wasn't an interpolation (and there has been some recent evidence of tampering), for all we know, Tacitus could have been passing along information that he'd heard from the Christians and accepted it at face value since Pilate killed a lot of Jewish leaders. Tacitus seemed to have no interest in the resurrection account, a point that should have piqued a Roman's attention, since a condemned criminal being seen walking about later among the Jewish people would have been a most noteworthy point.

I wasn't just referring to Tacitus, but the biblical description as well.

History is based on comparing as many written sources - primary texts, where possible - along with others (as well as other fields of scholarsihp - astronomy, archaeology, etc), verifying as best as possible their authenticity with regard to authorship and consistency (both internal and external) and judging all of these on balance to come to a conclusion as to whether what's being said is true or not.

It's not just based on the odd piece of information taken in isolation - like Tacitus' mention of the crucifixion of a "Chrestos" by Pilate.

I don't know if you watched the videos to which I linked in my earlier post!? But this is the sort of "balance of evidence" to which I'm referring.

You'd have to read a number of authors on the topic - including Ehrman, who's in no doubt about the matter - to gain a fuller understanding of what and why historians accept Jesus as an historical figure.

Bart Ehrman was pressed to provide the reason that he believed in a historical Jesus during an interview on The Infidel Guy. After 30 minutes of avoidance, ducking and weaving, he finally offered up the Bible as his rationale. I call this the "Scholars-Say-Shuffle".

Appeals to authority are unconvincing to me because even authorities are required to provide reasons for what they believe.

I had a look for this TheInfidelGuy and found a two-part YouTube audio discussion with Bart Ehrman totalling around 16 minutes - unless there's more to this debate (vis-à -vis your comment, "After 30 minutes ...").

From what I can hear, at no point in the available interview does Ehrman say what you claim he says - "....he finally offered up the Bible as his rationale".

TIG v Ehrman

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Independent Vision]

Does this mean that Beowulf was a historical person too? Considering that most everything in the story as far as locations and people are known to have existed?

Also, I'd like to point out that even the people of the "Jesus Myth Theory" doesn't necessarily say that there never was a Yeshua who was a messiah, but merely that the Jesus of the BIBLE didn't exist, not that he wasn't inspired by a preacher/priest/prophet by the name of Yeshua.

But then again, what is with the whole drivel about the Q document? It's a document that may or may not have existed that a lot of the people who argue for Jesus historicy bring up time and time again. And the embarrassment thing? Why aren't we applying the same line of reasoning to the Beowulf story to conclude that Beowulf existed then?

 

[DeistPaladin]

By "personal God" I'm referring to the (American) Protestant belief in an interventionist God - "The building would have fallen on me - but God stretched forth His Hand and ....".

This is not the sort of thing that Catholics believe happens.

OK, so we are working with completely different definitions of the term "personal god". My definition is a god who is, well, personal. This includes one who takes any personal interest in you or any other individual human, whether that be directly intervening or judging us in the hereafter. But I realize we're wrangling over semantics.

Since Pauline Christianity is the one that has predominated throughout the 2000 years of this religion, it is the one which most clearly is seen in the NT - and how it differs from what Jesus is reported as saying/implying in the NT.

First of all, Jesus in the NT contradicts himself frequently and the character varies from one Gospel to another.

Second, Paul was the prophet adopted first by Marcion and later by co-opted by what became Orthodox Christianity. There are, in fact, two very different Paul's in the NT. The Paul of the epistles, or at least the ones scholars feel they can reliable attribute to him, is a bombastic bully who thinks he answers to no one but Christ and has no trouble disagreeing with the apostles (see Galatians). The Paul of Acts is a submissive team player. One explanation for this contradiction is that the orthodox Christians did to Paul what they did to John the Baptist: Take the prophet of your rivals and make him a submissive team player on your side.

The Marcionites, if you're not familiar with them, believed that Jesus was a higher god, superior to Yahweh. He had no birth on earth, by virgin or otherwise, nor any childhood. He simply came down to earth as an adult to save us and offer us a better way. They rejected all things Jewish and needed no OT. Bart Ehrman wrote about how Paul was their prophet and a variation of Luke was their Gospel.

So how is it that the chief prophet hailed by Marcion wrote that Jesus was born of a woman or of the line of David? Did Marcion not know what Paul wrote? Did he hope that no one would ever actually read what Paul wrote? Or have a few things been altered since?

Bart Ehrman has also written extensively about the problems of pseudo-epigraphy, interpolation and other changes to the Bible over time (perhaps the most famous example is Mark 16). Half the epistles in the NT attributed to Paul are considered by scholars to be of doubtful authenticity.

So when you say "Pauline Christianity", what was that exactly? Marcionism?

I see I'll have to take this one step at a time.

Are you actually claiming that Docetism pre-dates Christianity?

I don't know which Christianity came first. I do know it wasn't Trinitarian Christianity.

The claims of apologists regarding the history of their religion are doubtful. When I look at Christian history, I don't see a single religion that got off the ground quickly and spread rapidly. I see many different versions of the same religion and Trinitarian Christianity came later to resolve, and ultimately suppress, these other variations.

Even evaluating the Bible reveals that the early Gospels did not relate a Trinitarian Jesus. Read only the Synpotics, Matthew, Mark and Luke, and you would never come to the conclusion of a Trinitarian Jesus. You would conclude that Jesus was a lesser being to Yahweh, separate and subordinate. It's only with the later John's Gospel that Jesus begins to say things like "I and my Father are one".

As to my original point about 1John 4:1-3 and 2 John 1:7, they demonstrate that the Docetics were a serious problem, meriting not one but two separate letters, and that John strangely appeals not to obvious recent history (which surely he would if he could) but rather to faith.

What you've posted here does not change the end-result: the Johaninne Gospel is the "traditional" view of Jesus which has been passed down throughout the intervening 1900 years.

Um, yeah it does. If the earlier Gospels said otherwise, that shows that Trinitarian Christianity is a later development. I'm not sure how you figure otherwise.

This "tradition" was written down at the turn of the first century, which clearly indicates that it had been decided during the last quarter or fifth of the first century.

Prove it. Show me why I should believe the Gospel of John was penned at the turn of the first century.

I wasn't just referring to Tacitus, but the biblical description as well.

:facepalm:

and here I thought we'd both accepted that the Gospel claims are not dependable as a historical account. Even using the Gospels, I can't tell you what decade Jesus was born. The accounts are riddled with contradictions that will not bare close examination.

I don't know if you watched the videos to which I linked in my earlier post!? But this is the sort of "balance of evidence" to which I'm referring.

I regret I can't watch the videos at work. Can you offer me a synopsis of their claims?

I had a look for this TheInfidelGuy and found a two-part YouTube audio discussion with Bart Ehrman totalling around 16 minutes - unless there's more to this debate (vis-à -vis your comment, "After 30 minutes ...").

From what I can hear, at no point in the available interview does Ehrman say what you claim he says - "....he finally offered up the Bible as his rationale".

Maybe we're listening to different episodes but I was listening to it live and participating in the chat room at the time. I counted over 30 minutes of the program but perhaps my perceptions were wrong. Regardless, he did offer the Bible as his rationale as far as I understood. If Bart Ehrman has other reasons for believing strongly in a historical Jesus, I've not heard it.

 

[Nemesiah]

I Believe in Hyperobole and big fish phenomena, BUT even then I have a hard time believing JESUS was an actual person after learning of the religious manpulations done in that time to serve politics (since they were so intertwined).

YES Jesus could have been a bronce age hippie who got pothumous praise by hysteric followers that had nothing else to do than to try to make sense of the world without a broadband conection to google but had a lot of myths of liberation and well being distracting them from the fact that they lived horrible painfull lives.

HOWEVER

Which is simpler? that a character got written up to serve as a way of getting the people behind some political agenda OR that there was an uber amazing guy that fails to show up anywere else?

The bible I THINK is not usable as a historical document since it contains magic, fliying people, zombies and unicorns; that it mentions real places gives it no more historical merit than Quentin Tarantinos "Inglorious Bastards". Trying to glipse the truth from the bible is a failed atempt since one can never know what was real and what wasn't by itself; now if we compare it to other documents maybe some history can be obtained BUT by itself, none.

Now AS FAR AS I KNOW (Im a graphic designer / computer engenier student / applied mathematics student, no historian) the Bible is THE SOLE document that mentions this Jesus fellow much like of all the books about New Orleans, "Interview with a Vampire" is the only one that mentions Lestat.

Then (to me) it is much more plausible that Jesus is a character in the fiction of the bible than a real person. I'm sure there were plenty of Jesus carpenters and I'm sure that to avoid a death by stoning virgin births were more or less a commonplace calim; This however isn't the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus of the bible performed miracles, walked on water and by one acount rode two (stolen) donkeys at the same time (that's amizaing by itself)

Are there Peolple called Logan in Canada? sure; is The Wolverine a reality NO.

Trying to find historical Jesus is a bit usless (IMO) because even if you find some desert preacher named Jesus he is not JESUS, they are not the same thing ones is a malnourished desert madman from the bronce age and the other is GOD incarnate.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

By "personal God" I'm referring to the (American) Protestant belief in an interventionist God - "The building would have fallen on me - but God stretched forth His Hand and ....".

This is not the sort of thing that Catholics believe happens.

OK, so we are working with completely different definitions of the term "personal god". My definition is a god who is, well, personal. This includes one who takes any personal interest in you or any other individual human, whether that be directly intervening or judging us in the hereafter. But I realize we're wrangling over semantics.

The use of the term "personal" doesn't really mean anything if applied to theists as a minimalist definition - after all, all theists (and deists) believe in God(s).

Where I draw the distinction with a "personal" God, is if the person believes that God will actively intervene to preserve his or her life (in a accident, etc - like my example of the building about to fall down).

In other words, "because I'm special".

This is distinct from praying for "inner strength", for example.

Since Pauline Christianity is the one that has predominated throughout the 2000 years of this religion, it is the one which most clearly is seen in the NT - and how it differs from what Jesus is reported as saying/implying in the NT.

First of all, Jesus in the NT contradicts himself frequently and the character varies from one Gospel to another.

Second, Paul was the prophet adopted first by Marcion and later by co-opted by what became Orthodox Christianity. There are, in fact, two very different Paul's in the NT. The Paul of the epistles, or at least the ones scholars feel they can reliable attribute to him, is a bombastic bully who thinks he answers to no one but Christ and has no trouble disagreeing with the apostles (see Galatians). The Paul of Acts is a submissive team player. One explanation for this contradiction is that Acts is that the orthodox Christians did to Paul what they did to John the Baptist: Take the prophet of your rivals and make him a submissive team player on your side.

The Marcionites, if you're not familiar with them, believed that Jesus was a higher god, superior to Yahweh. He had no birth on earth, by virgin or otherwise, nor any childhood. He simply came down to earth as an adult to save us and offer us a better way. They rejected all things Jewish and needed no OT. Bart Ehrman wrote about how Paul was their prophet and a variation of Luke was their Gospel.

So how is it that the chief prophet hailed by Marcion wrote that Jesus was born of a woman or of the line of David? Did Marcion not know what Paul wrote? Did he hope that no one would ever actually read what Paul wrote? Or have a few things been altered since?

Bart Ehrman has also written extensively about the problems of pseudo-epigraphy, interpolation and other changes to the Bible over time (perhaps the most famous example is Mark 16). Half the epistles in the NT attributed to Paul are considered by scholars to be of doubtful authenticity.

So when you say "Pauline Christianity", what was that exactly? Marcionism?

Although Marcion is believed to be the most likely person to have first collected Paul's writings, the Church rejected his interpretation as heresy.

It was, amongst other things, seen as Gnostic and Docetic in nature.

The Pauline interpretation is not that of Marcion, although the latter's contribution (collecting/disseminating Paul's writings) is acknowledged.

I see I'll have to take this one step at a time.

Are you actually claiming that Docetism pre-dates Christianity?

I don't know which Christianity came first. I do know it wasn't Trinitarian Christianity.

The claims of apologists regarding the history of their religion are doubtful. When I look at Christian history, I don't see a single religion that got off the ground quickly and spread rapidly. I see many different versions of the same religion and Trinitarian Christianity came later to resolve, and ultimately suppress, these other variations.

Even evaluating the Bible reveals that the early Gospels did not relate a Trinitarian Jesus. Read only the Synpotics, Matthew, Mark and Luke, and you would never come to the conclusion of a Trinitarian Jesus. You would conclude that Jesus was a lesser being to Yahweh, separate and subordinate. It's only with the later John's Gospel that Jesus begins to say things like "I and my Father are one".

As to my original point about 1John 4:1-3 and 2 John 1:7, they demonstrate that the Docetics were a serious problem, meriting not one but two separate letters, and that John strangely appeals not to obvious recent history (which surely he would if he could) but rather to faith.

The point I'm trying to make is that your earlier posts appear to imply that Christianity spread from the Hellenistic world to the Holy Land - I've been attempting to point out that that is not correct: Christianity stemmed from a Jewish origin, which then was temporized by Hellenistic philosophy resulting in - amongst other interpretations - Docetism.

What you've posted here does not change the end-result: the Johaninne Gospel is the "traditional" view of Jesus which has been passed down throughout the intervening 1900 years.

Um, yeah it does. If the earlier Gospels said otherwise, that shows that Trinitarian Christianity is a later development. I'm not sure how you figure otherwise.

You appear to be confusing what I'm saying.

At no point did I claim that Trinitarianism is a earlier development - I said that the Johannine interpretation is the one with which we've ended up, and that it was the result of a viewpoint ("tradition", "orthodoxy" or "interpretation") which won out towards the end of the first century.

This "tradition" was written down at the turn of the first century, which clearly indicates that it had been decided during the last quarter or fifth of the first century.

Prove it. Show me why I should believe the Gospel of John was penned at the turn of the first century.

Clearly, as I'm not an historian, I have to bow to the knowledge of those who are.

Although using Wikipedia as a "source" is frowned upon, it's the easiest to cite, rather than list a host of authors/books - however, it does list other sources, so you could peruse those if you so choose.

I wasn't just referring to Tacitus, but the biblical description as well.

:facepalm:

and here I thought we'd both accepted that the Gospel claims are not dependable as a historical account. Even using the Gospels, I can't tell you what decade Jesus was born. The accounts are riddled with contradictions that will not bare close examination.

Unfortunately, when I mention the Bible, you appear to assume that I do so in isolation of any other material - "The Bible tells me so! *vacant-eyed happy-clappy look*"

As I pointed out earlier...

History is based on comparing as many written sources - primary texts, where possible - along with others (as well as other fields of scholarsihp - astronomy, archaeology, etc), verifying as best as possible their authenticity with regard to authorship and consistency (both internal and external) and judging all of these on balance to come to a conclusion as to whether what's being said is true or not.

This also involves what's referred to as higher criticism.

I'm granting historians the benefit of the doubt that they have sufficient expertise in their chosen fields to decide whether the crucifixion, etc, is relevant as evidence or not.

I don't know if you watched the videos to which I linked in my earlier post!? But this is the sort of "balance of evidence" to which I'm referring.

I regret I can't watch the videos at work. Can you offer me a synopsis of their claims?

But you can surf forums...!?

I'd certainly hope you'd have time to view them at home - particularly the two multi-part episodes I've located. I have yet to watch these myself, so I don't know if the two excerpts are from those episodes or others, which I've yet to locate.

Let me try and summarise the two excerpts (any errors are my own, obviously)...

In the first excerpt, James Tabor describes how the early Church attempted to ignore the letters of Jesus' disciples - James, etc - due to their off-message nature, for several centuries but were forced to add them later (probably edited, in my view, although Tabor doesn't mention this in the excerpt) due to the strong oral tradition, which was occurring in tandem to the written scripture during the first few centuries.

In them, Jesus is referred to as "Master"; he is portrayed as a human blessed by God - not divine.

The "letter" or "Book of James" contains the teachings of Jesus not about Jesus - there's no "cross of Christ", no "blood of Christ", no forgiveness of sins through belief in "Our Lord in Heaven".

Beckford also discusses the Didache, which is amongst the earliest writings, possibly dating from the middle to the end of the first century. He points out that it contains no virgin birth, no resurrection, no Jesus as God - simply a human teacher. It also contains an early example of communion - there's no "body and blood of Christ". Again, Jesus is not referred to as the "Son of God" but as a "servant".

Beckford (and, later, Tabor) refers to the Letter of Jude (Judas) - where he complains that there are those corrupting Jesus' original message - that the real "tradition" is losing out to newer groups with their own agendas, reading into the teachings whatever they wish and taking different directions from the "family tradition".

All of this is what Beckford refers to as the problem of the Church - Jesus as man versus Jesus as divine (Christ) - and that the human message has been lost through embracing Paul's "divine" interpretation.

The second excerpt addresses John the Baptist, the "extended family", and how the role of both has been all but written-out of the Bible.

Jesus and John are very close - there is a "kinship" between them - Tabor indicates that the Greek implies they are members of the same extended family.

John is the teacher of Jesus and Jesus' ministry only really begins after John's death - up till then, John is clearly the leader. The disciples ask Jesus to teach them to pray as John did (the Greek implies the Lord's Prayer, Jesus' "signature" prayer).

Only like one other person in the Bible - Moses - John is described as "more than a prophet", according to Jesus in the earliest versions of Mark, "none is greater than John". This has been down-played in later versions of Mark, with the addition, "but one who is the least in the kingdom is greater than John".

The role of John is downgraded through the four gospels

Mark - Jesus presents himself to John to be baptised, like a disciple.
Matthew - John protests that he's not worthy to baptise Jesus;
Luke - No mention that John baptised Jesus;
John - No baptism mentioned at all.

Due to exalting Jesus and Mary, his very human family (Beckford mentions that there are 4 brothers, 2 sisters, uncles, aunts and at least one cousin) is removed from the Biblical story due to the clear contradiction to his divinity.

All told, not only have we lost the earliest human teachings of Jesus, through the immediate disciples' writings being left out/edited, we've also lost the importance of John the Baptist and the human family of Jesus, along with the extended family of which they were a part.

[I like Beckford as a presenter - he's done a number of very good series on this and other topics.]

I had a look for this TheInfidelGuy and found a two-part YouTube audio discussion with Bart Ehrman totalling around 16 minutes - unless there's more to this debate (vis-à -vis your comment, "After 30 minutes ...").

From what I can hear, at no point in the available interview does Ehrman say what you claim he says - "....he finally offered up the Bible as his rationale".

Maybe we're listening to different episodes but I was listening to it live and participating in the chat room at the time. I counted over 30 minutes of the program but perhaps my perceptions were wrong. Regardless, he did offer the Bible as his rationale as far as I understood. If Bart Ehrman has other reasons for believing strongly in a historical Jesus, I've not heard it.

I had gone to TIG's website, but the one episode with Ehrman needs a login - it's approximately 22 MB, so is likely to be less than an half-hour, and is probably the one to which I've linked.

Ehrman had indicated - in the interview - that he was thinking of writing a book on the historicity of Jesus (given his output, I'd certainty hope this isn't an off-the-cuff remark).

Given what I'd said above about historians' approach and the "consensus", I'd accept his overall judgement on it.

[I've also checked up on Robert Price - who's mentioned in the interview (as well as by Independent Vision earlier) - and see that his position has somewhat changed from his earlier one:

He is known in particular for his skepticism about the existence of Jesus as an historical figure, arguing in 2009 that Jesus may have existed but "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know."[7]

So we can place him alongside Pagels' "don't know" position, rather than a outright denier.]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'd prepared to believe there was a man named Jesus living around 2000 years ago.

I could also stretch to the belief that he was a successful preacher with many followers and disciples and (for the time) he may have been executed for it.

I find it hard to believe that the Jewish supreme council convened on Passover Eve to talk about/plot getting rid of such a person or that Ponchus Pilate tried to save him in some way or indeed was part of the execution.

And I would go so far to say that he did not walk on water, raise people from the dead, split 5/7 loaves of bread between 4000 people, heal the sick or rise from the dead and fly off into the sky.

To quote Brasseye, it 'reads like the ramblings of a drugged horse'

I think the simpler and therefore more likely solution (Occams razor) is that these are exaggerated stories. Things that started out as all being parable and slowly evolved into something more. Happens all the time in the modern day because of the internet. Check out the Snopes website.

Sorry, alimck, I didn't mean to ignore you - or appear to be doing so.

Personally, I believe that there was a real human being underlying all of this, whose person and teachings have been mangled almost beyond recognition by its subsequent political "hijacking" and wholesale reinterpretation resulting in a successful religion, which was couched in such a way as to be "adoptable" by Charlemagne as the unifying religion of the (predominantly "gentile") Roman Empire.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DeistPaladin]

The Pauline interpretation is not that of Marcion, although the latter's contribution (collecting/disseminating Paul's writings) is acknowledged.

Maybe I wasn't clear with my point because you're not addressing it. Let me try again.

1. Paul was the primary prophet of Marcionite Christianity.

2. Marcionite Christianity believed Jesus was a higher god, not born on earth.

3. Paul wrote that Jesus was born on earth and was of the line of David.

So, logically, either:

1. Marcion promoted Paul as his prophet but never read actually what Paul wrote.

2. Marcion promoted Paul as his prophet, knowing Paul contradicts Marcionism, but lied about what Paul wrote and hoped no one would ever read Paul's writings for themselves.

3. We not getting the whole story of what Paul wrote. Paul was reworked and adapted to suit the needs of the triumphant Trinitarians. Indeed, Acts is a later work that presents Paul, former Marcionite prophet, as a submissive team player.

Which of those options would you think is more likely?

As for the epistles of John:

1. There were Christians who didn't believe Jesus had come in the flesh at the time the epistles were written.

2. This group of Christians (Docetics?) were apparently a problem since they warranted two letters.

3. "John" does not appeal to obvious recent history but rather condemns these alternate Christians with words of faith.

Hope I've been clear this time.

Christianity stemmed from a Jewish origin, which then was temporized by Hellenistic philosophy resulting in - amongst other interpretations - Docetism.

No, Christianity is the offspring of Judaism mingled with various pagan ideas. The non-Judaic ideas of Christianity as well as their blasphemous notions of divine intercessors and what the messiah was supposed to be are proof that their theology is not of a solely Jewish origin.

At no point did I claim that Trinitarianism is a earlier development - I said that the Johannine interpretation is the one with which we've ended up, and that it was the result of a viewpoint ("tradition", "orthodoxy" or "interpretation") which won out towards the end of the first century.

No, it won out after Nicaea. That's the whole reason they needed the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.

And John's Gospel came AFTER the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Reading the Synoptics alone leaves the impression that Jesus is a separate and subordinate being to Yahweh. If John was the established tradition, nobody told Mark, Matthew or Luke.

Although using Wikipedia as a "source" is frowned upon, it's the easiest to cite, rather than list a host of authors/books - however, it does list other sources, so you could peruse those if you so choose.

Apologists choose the earliest possible dates. I'm still waiting for proof that John's Gospel was written in the 1st Century CE.

 

[kenandkids]

If John was the established tradition, nobody told Mark, Matthew or Luke.

Well, none of those three spoke to each other either. Times, dates, governors, towns, miracles, etc., are different in each. How anyone could even pretend to use the bible as a source is beyond me, because they would have to take a solitary gospel and use it alone, after explaining why they feel it to be more accurate than the others.

 

[DeistPaladin]

How anyone could even pretend to use the bible as a source is beyond me,

I hope one day we live in a rational society where the Bible is rightly placed on the same shelf with other mythologies like the Iliad and Odyssey. By rights, anyone who seriously hold up the Bible as "historical documentation" should simply be laughed out of the room.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The Pauline interpretation is not that of Marcion, although the latter's contribution (collecting/disseminating Paul's writings) is acknowledged.

Maybe I wasn't clear with my point because you're not addressing it. Let me try again.

1. Paul was the primary prophet of Marcionite Christianity.

2. Marcionite Christianity believed Jesus was a higher god, not born on earth.

3. Paul wrote that Jesus was born on earth and was of the line of David.

So, logically, either:

1. Marcion promoted Paul as his prophet but never read actually what Paul wrote.

2. Marcion promoted Paul as his prophet, knowing Paul contradicts Marcionism, but lied about what Paul wrote and hoped no one would ever read Paul's writings for themselves.

3. We not getting the whole story of what Paul wrote. Paul was reworked and adapted to suit the needs of the triumphant Trinitarians. Indeed, Acts is a later work that presents Paul, former Marcionite prophet, as a submissive team player.

Which of those options would you think is more likely?

As for the epistles of John:

1. There were Christians who didn't believe Jesus had come in the flesh at the time the epistles were written.

2. This group of Christians (Docetics?) were apparently a problem since they warranted two letters.

3. "John" does not appeal to obvious recent history but rather condemns these alternate Christians with words of faith.

Hope I've been clear this time.

I confess I had been puzzled at your continuing reference to Marcion(ism).

Apart from Paul's writings, Marcion also used a edited - by him - Gospel of Luke (10 chapters, instead of 24).

There were a number of problems with his canonical interpretation - rejecting the whole of the OT and most of the NT, anti-Judaism, inventing a new "God" on top of that of the OT (ie, the Christian God hadn't been in contact with us before Jesus), etc.

Is it any wonder that it was declared a heresy?

Personally, I wouldn't quite agree with your sentiment that Acts (of the Apostles) describes Paul as a "team-player" - there are also differences of opinion as to its accuracy.

He was carrying-out his own self-appointed mission as "'Apostle' to the Gentiles" - nowadays, he might be called a "wannabe". Equally, he has a disagreement with the other apostles over circumcision being required for Gentiles and - later - he is mobbed by a crowd of Jews in Rome who accuse him of preaching against the Law, and has to swear a oath that he upholds said Law.

These are not indicative of a team-player.

In my view, Paul was - to say the least - a troubled and disturbed man.

From his conversion - which sounds more like a mental breakdown - to his self-appointment as an "apostle" to the Gentiles, to his attitude towards women and, later, his impending execution in Rome (in contrast to Peter's sanguine acceptance of his impending martyrdom, Paul is reported to have fantasized about all the various ways he might be tortured/killed), he doesn't seem a well-balanced individual.

Although Marcion's criticism of the OT's violent God not being in keeping with the NT's "all-loving" God is understandable - indeed, his criticisms have been taken up by many through the centuries to this day - he appears to have had his own strongly-held ideas about what Christianity meant.

Given that, as you point out, his interpretation is in conflict with Paul's own interpretation - and the one which the Church was promoting - it was declared heresy, though he appears to have continued pushing it elsewhere.

Christianity stemmed from a Jewish origin, which then was temporized by Hellenistic philosophy resulting in - amongst other interpretations - Docetism.

No, Christianity is the offspring of Judaism mingled with various pagan ideas. The non-Judaic ideas of Christianity as well as their blasphemous notions of divine intercessors and what the messiah was supposed to be are proof that their theology is not of a solely Jewish origin.

When I first read this, I thought you were disagreeing with me and then repeating what I'd said.

On a second reading, I realised that you see the development of Christianity as a two-stage process, as against my three-stage one.

If I understand you correctly, your process is:

1) Judaism;
2) Judaeo-Pagan "Christianity".

I, on the other hand, contend that the process was:

1) Judaism;
2) Jewish Christianity (as a off-shoot of Judaism);
3) Hellenized/Romanized (Pagan/Gentile) Christianity.

It seems to me that you're overlooking/underestimating the critical "window" between the start of Jesus' ministry and that of Paul's to the Gentiles.

Remember, Jesus and his disciples were preaching only to Jews, in keeping with Jewish tradition - thus, Jewish Christianity.

It's only several years after Jesus' death and Paul's conversion, that he then takes those teachings to the non-Jewish communities - which causes friction (as perhaps Jude's complaint is a reference). Later, after Paul's missions further afield to the diasporadic Jews and Greeks, which are then brought back to the Holy Land by returning diasporadic Jews, there are further problems (John's letters regarding Docetism and other "anti-christ" teachings).

It's clear to me that Jewish Christianity pre-dates the Pagan Christianity, to which you refer.

And it's this latter version to which both Jude's and John's letters refer.

As Tabor puts it in the excerpt, Jude could see "the writing on the wall" with - for all intents and purposes - a rising tide of bastardized versions of Jesus' teachings, that the real teachings were losing-out. Over time, they were being drowned-out and, eventually, actively "drowned" with other unacceptable versions under the label "heresy".

At no point did I claim that Trinitarianism is a earlier development - I said that the Johannine interpretation is the one with which we've ended up, and that it was the result of a viewpoint ("tradition", "orthodoxy" or "interpretation") which won out towards the end of the first century.

No, it won out after Nicaea. That's the whole reason they needed the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.

And John's Gospel came AFTER the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Reading the Synoptics alone leaves the impression that Jesus is a separate and subordinate being to Yahweh. If John was the established tradition, nobody told Mark, Matthew or Luke.

I think you're confusing "viewpoints" with "canon" - they're not the same thing.

John's gospel was the last interpretation of the four - as an aside, I'm not sure why you think I believe otherwise - and it's clear that its viewpoint about Jesus has arisen before the end of the first century.

"Canon", on the other hand, developed in direct opposition to Marcion's heretical "canon" of circa AD 140 - Irenaeus started the ball rolling with a four-gospel canon, circa AD 160. Origen was already using a NT almost identical to our own and by the middle of the third century, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians.

Nicea was needed to settle "canon" more for political, rather than theological, purposes.

Although using Wikipedia as a "source" is frowned upon, it's the easiest to cite, rather than list a host of authors/books - however, it does list other sources, so you could peruse those if you so choose.

Apologists choose the earliest possible dates. I'm still waiting for proof that John's Gospel was written in the 1st Century CE.

Date for the Gospel of John

Note the point made regarding the fact that "John" does not mention the destruction of the Temple (AD 70). In fact, none of them do - hence scholars' tendency to choose the earlier dates.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

Does this mean that Beowulf was a historical person too? Considering that most everything in the story as far as locations and people are known to have existed?

Also, I'd like to point out that even the people of the "Jesus Myth Theory" doesn't necessarily say that there never was a Yeshua who was a messiah, but merely that the Jesus of the BIBLE didn't exist, not that he wasn't inspired by a preacher/priest/prophet by the name of Yeshua.

But then again, what is with the whole drivel about the Q document? It's a document that may or may not have existed that a lot of the people who argue for Jesus historicy bring up time and time again. And the embarrassment thing? Why aren't we applying the same line of reasoning to the Beowulf story to conclude that Beowulf existed then?

I suppose the main reason is that Beowulf hasn't had such an impact on Western culture.

There are all these people in the world who believe in Jesus, questions about the historical Jesus are bound to arise. No doubt the same questions would arise if a vast number of the population believed Beowulf to be the lord and saviour.

To me it is of very little consequence whether or not Jesus existed. I just personally find the various ideas and theories surrounding him to be interesting to study.

 

[DeistPaladin]

I confess I had been puzzled at your continuing reference to Marcion(ism).

Apart from Paul's writings, Marcion also used a edited - by him - Gospel of Luke (10 chapters, instead of 24).

So which of my three options are you going with, then? Are you suggesting that Marcion edited Paul's letters and hoped no one would ever find out? If so, why use Paul at all then?

I, on the other hand, contend that the process was:

1) Judaism;
2) Jewish Christianity (as a off-shoot of Judaism);
3) Hellenized/Romanized (Pagan/Gentile) Christianity.

"Jewish Christianity", if such a term has any meaning, would be the Ebionite version.

I wonder why you think that Christianity was an outgrowth strictly of Judaism when many of the core concepts run contrary to Jewish teaching.

Note the point made regarding the fact that "John" does not mention the destruction of the Temple (AD 70). In fact, none of them do - hence scholars' tendency to choose the earlier dates.

These "scholars" have apparently not read the Bible. See Mark 13.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I confess I had been puzzled at your continuing reference to Marcion(ism).

Apart from Paul's writings, Marcion also used a edited - by him - Gospel of Luke (10 chapters, instead of 24).

So which of my three options are you going with, then? Are you suggesting that Marcion edited Paul's letters and hoped no one would ever find out? If so, why use Paul at all then?

What gave Marcionism its impetus was the obvious contradictions about the OT and NT, which any fool could see.

He doesn't appear to have edited the letters of Paul, although their authorship was still in dispute at the time; it was more the latter fact that raised questions about how he used (his interpretation of) Paul in his "canon".

Given this, and that he all but massacred Luke, along with rejecting the rest of the major writings as they were accepted at the time, his version was clearly neither mainstream or acceptable as such by the Church.

As I said earlier, it was due to Marcion, that the Church started to give serious thought as to what was "canon" - which meant looking at how the major writings could be (mis)interpreted.

If I understand you correctly, your process is:

1) Judaism;
2) Judaeo-Pagan "Christianity".

Add a stage in between as Judaism changed over time from exposure to outside ideas, likely the result of living as a province of various pagan empires. The older books of the OT rejected the idea of an afterlife. Some of the later books contained ideas that there might be one.

So, my first impression was correct - you're using a three-stage process.

I, on the other hand, contend that the process was:

1) Judaism;
2) Jewish Christianity (as a off-shoot of Judaism);
3) Hellenized/Romanized (Pagan/Gentile) Christianity.

"Jewish Christianity", if such a term has any meaning, would be the Ebionite version.

I wonder why you think that Christianity was an outgrowth strictly of Judaism when many of the core concepts run contrary to Jewish teaching.

Because Christianity started with Jesus - a Jew - with Jewish disciples. This was then Hellenized (Paganized) through Paul's preaching to Gentiles - it was as a result of this that it ran contrary to the Jewish teachings.

Note the point made regarding the fact that "John" does not mention the destruction of the Temple (AD 70). In fact, none of them do - hence scholars' tendency to choose the earlier dates.

These "scholars" have apparently not read the Bible. See Mark 13.

Why do I have the sinking feeling that I'm going to repeat the same thing I said when you posted the verses of John as evidence that Christians didn't believe in the historicity of Jesus?

Below is the KJV of Mark 13, in full, from a biblical website...

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

Would you kindly tell me how you can interpret this as referring to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 as a past event?
[showmore=Hint]Why is Jesus sometimes referred to as an Apocalyptic Prophet?[/showmore]
Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

 

[DeistPaladin]

He doesn't appear to have edited the letters of Paul, although their authorship was still in dispute at the time; it was more the latter fact that raised questions about how he used (his interpretation of) Paul in his "canon".

OK, I'm having trouble nailing you down here. Can you please select from one of the three options:

1. Marcion had no idea what Paul wrote, but still picked him as the primary prophet of his brand of Christianity.

2. Marcion knew what Paul wrote, that it contradicted his assertions about Jesus, and hoped no one would notice.

3. Somthing's fishy here. Maybe Paul's letters got changed after Trinitarianism's triumph over Marcionism, about the same time Paul got his makeover in Acts.

If there was a 4th option, I don't see it.

his version was clearly neither mainstream or acceptable as such by the Church.

Again according to Bart Ehrman, Marcionism was a serious rival to Trinitarianism. Marcion lost because Rome needed the appeal to antiquity to make Christianity stick.

I, on the other hand, contend that the process was:

1) Judaism;
2) Jewish Christianity (as a off-shoot of Judaism);
3) Hellenized/Romanized (Pagan/Gentile) Christianity.

Bully for you. Prove it.

You can start by addressing the reasons I offered that Christianity was NOT strictly an off-shoot of Judaism.

Because Christianity started with Jesus - a Jew - with Jewish disciples.

Prove it.

Why do I have the sinking feeling that I'm going to repeat the same thing I said when you posted the verses of John as evidence that Christians didn't believe in the historicity of Jesus?

You're going to subject me to more apologetic assertions and rationalizations?

Would you kindly tell me how you can interpret this as referring to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 as a past event?
[showmore=Hint]Why is Jesus sometimes referred to as an Apocalyptic Prophet?[/showmore]

Like most great prophecies, they're all either vague forecasts interpreted post hoc as fitting events or, in this case, the story was written after the events occurred to make it seem like a prophecy.

 

[Ad Initium]