Debate on Whether Jesus Was a Historical Figure

[spin]

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

His gospel (to his own satisfaction) was about a messiah. You pointed out that Paul does not say he got some of the gospel by revelation; by your logic, then, that means he is claiming that his predecessors did not believe in a messiah.

Next you'll be saying that as Paul didn't invent the word "christ" his messianic revelation must be derivative.


spin

[spin]

Originally Posted by martini

"the gospel" must necessarily point to specific Christian theology.

It's premature to talk of christian theology at the time of Paul's writing.


spin

[Amaleq13]

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

SO when Paul said that Jesus had been portrayed to them as crucified, they already knew that and he was doing no more than reminding them that the crucifixion freed them from the Law, rather than other interpretations?

He was reminding them of how they came to accept Paul's preaching, yes.

"What happened to you guys? Who has tricked you into rejecting what you once believed after I described the crucifixion of Christ to you?"

[aa5874]

It is just not tenable that Paul could have preached a gospel within a few years of the death an historical or figurative Jesus. He would have been fodder for the skeptics, fodder for the Jews.

During the 1st century, Judaea was under the rule of the Roman Empire, Paul's, or even Peter's gospel is of no use to a Jew while the Jewish Temple is still in active use.

The Jews already had a process established for hundred of years for atonement of sins. The historical or figurative Jesus is of no benefit for a Jew, he knows already how to get his sins forgiven. The Laws are already written and circulated presumed to have been laid down by the God of the Jews.

The Jews needed to be delivered from Roman rule, from paying taxes to the Roman Empire, from deciding their high priests, and from being forced to worship or honor the Caesars. Jesus, with whatever "flesh", did not deliver.

And with the outrageous features that Jesus was a God, who was resurrected and ascended to heaven, and must be worshipped by Jews to be saved from their sins with the Temple was still standing, both Paul and Peter would have probably been found dead, the very first day they made their claim public, whether or not Jesus had "flesh".

[Doug Shaver]

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

If Pearson wrote "I received my Gospel from no man", no-one would have a problem with that, and no-one would misunderstand what he is saying.

But did he ever write it? More to my point, has any Christian since Paul ever written anything of that sort? And if Paul is the only Christian who ever said "I received my gospel from no man," maybe that's because no man before him had ever preached his gospel?

[GakuseiDon]

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

But did he ever write it?

No, but he makes it clear that the gospel message he is now teaching, i.e. his "Gospel of Inclusion", was received via revelation and studying the scriptures.

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

More to my point, has any Christian since Paul ever written anything of that sort? And if Paul is the only Christian who ever said "I received my gospel from no man," maybe that's because no man before him had ever preached his gospel?

I would say that, while we can't assume it, it is a reasonable assumption. (Though conversely, Pearson is not the first one to preach universalism, even though he now preaches it after a received revelation.)

[aa5874]

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

No, but he makes it clear that the gospel message he is now teaching, i.e. his "Gospel of Inclusion", was received via revelation and studying the scriptures.

But, there was no Gospel of Exclusion. Acts of the Apostles claimed that when the day of Pentecost had come the Apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost and was preaching a Gospel of Inclusion a Universal Gospel long before Saul/Paul was converted by a bright light that blinded him to reality.

The words of Peter in Acts 2.21

And it shall come to pass that WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

And Acts 15.7-8

....And.... Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among us that, that the Gentiles by My Mouth shall hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us.

Peter was already preaching the Gospel of Inclusion and even had converts who were filled with the Holy Ghost.

There is something radically wrong or contradictory about Paul's revelations. Paul is late with his revelations, Peter was already filled with the Holy Ghost of God.

[Doug Shaver]

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I would say that, while we can't assume it, it is a reasonable assumption.

Christians have been writing stuff for almost 2,000 years. Except for the stuff that didn't get preserved, there is no need to assume anything. It can be empirically determined whether any extant document records any Christian's claim to have learned his or her gospel from "no man."

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Though conversely, Pearson is not the first one to preach universalism

And we know that because we have documentation of universalism being preached before Pearson's time. There is no documentation for whatever it was that pre-Pauline Christians believed.

[aa5874]

Now, if Jesus of Nazareth did really exist as just human, then the entire NT and church writers provided completely erroneous information about him from prophecies to ascension.

And, what is even more alarming, is that these church writers branded those who claim Jesus was only human as liars and deceivers of the devil.

If Jesus was only human, and was known by people of antiquity to be only human, that is, people of antiquity knew his mother and father, interacted with Jesus as a child, scolded him and played with him, saw him grow up to be an adult and knew he did not do anything supernatural, why did these very same people of antiquity worship him as a God, and did not worship his disciples as Gods also?

Why did not people of antiquity worship Peter as a God or Paul, why just Jesus, if he was only human?

If Peter, James, Stephen, Paul and Jesus were just humans preaching the gospel, and ALL of them were crucified or executed, why was Jesus singled out to be called a God, and was worshipped as a God who could forgive the sins of the Jews and Gentiles, violate the Sabbath and call the Pharisees agents of the devil?

Jesus was only in Judaea, Peter and Paul did more evangelical work than Jesus, they were all over the Roman Empire and had thousands of converts and started many churches, Paul and Peter were crucified or executed for the gospel.

How come they are not regarded as Gods?

Because only Jesus was a God. He existed before the world was created.

[spin]

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

He was reminding them of how they came to accept Paul's preaching, yes.

"What happened to you guys? Who has tricked you into rejecting what you once believed after I described the crucifixion of Christ to you?"

The text is actually saying:

"Who has tricked you into rejecting what you once believed", namely christ crucified. "It was before your eyes that christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!... Did you receive the spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?"


spin

[Unbeliever]

Greetings John W. Loftus!

I've just finished reading you book about why you bacame an atheist, and wanted to let you know that I thouroughly enjoyed it. If I were a believer in Christianity, I think your book (among others) would've given me a hard time!

[Toto]

Tom Verenna's blog in response to Loftus' claims.

[aa5874]

Originally Posted by Toto

Tom Verenna's blog in response to Loftus' claims.

There are errors in Tom Verenna's post. He wrote, "The fact that Mark used Paul is not new to scholarship."

But it is not a fact that the author of Mark used Paul, it is just a theory.

Again, in the same post, he wrote, "The Gospel author of Mark used Paul's account to create the Last Supper scene."

But upon examination, words found in Paul's Last Supper scene are only found in gLuke.

There is really no indication that the author of Mark or Matthew saw Paul's or the author of Luke's rendition of the words of Jesus, however, it is likely that either the author of Luke or author of the Pauline letters were aware of one or the other's version of the Last Supper.

[Analyst]

Originally Posted by Toto

Yes, I just located that thread, and if Zindler is still using the Vossius argument, he has not been paying attention.

ISTR that Michael Baigent also claimed that a copy found in Russia had the passage missing.

[Ken Carman]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Enjoy this debate and chime in. It's a debate I'm involved in. To my own dismay I'm partially agreeing with the extremely obnoxious and childish J.P. Holding that Jesus was a historical person who founded the Jesus cult (my view can be found below his on the left side). But, I'm also agreeing with Dr. Frank Zindler of American Atheists, that the Jesus figure was made up of many mythical elements. My position is a middle one between theirs that fits the data better.

What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable. And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise), and he doesn't present a theory of how such a cultic movement began in the first place.

Seems to me if someone claims any book or document is historically accurate: especially completely; without reservation, it is up to them to defend their stance or prove their point.

My own theory about cults is rather simple. A dynamic leader; or one who is perceived as such... I have to include that because I believe those who believe Bush can do no wrong, for example, are cultists in a sense... gathers followers who convince others. Some cults are designed like pyramid schemes that implode: Jonestown. What kept the Jesus cult alive is fresh blood, fresh thought and a willingness to adapt to other faiths so as to attract more followers. Like accepting much of the pagan feltergarb that surrounded Solstice and spinning it into Christmas.

The memory of the leader after he passes on is altered and shifted to adjust for these changes. In Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman provides many examples of this and in his book Lost Christianities he shows how in the early years, post execution, many variations of Christianity struggled over this.

[Ken Carman]

There are errors in Tom Verenna's post. He wrote, "The fact that Mark used Paul is not new to scholarship."

But it is not a fact that the author of Mark used Paul, it is just a theory.

Again, in the same post, he wrote, "The Gospel author of Mark used Paul's account to create the Last Supper scene."

But upon examination, words found in Paul's Last Supper scene are only found in Luke.

There is really no indication that the author of Mark or Matthew saw Paul's or the author of Luke's rendition of the words of Jesus, however, it is likely that either the author of Luke or author of the Pauline letters were aware of one or the other's version of the Last Supper.

According to what I have read and researched Mark is supposedly the first written, and most likely written by Mark himself. So it would be unlikely Mark would have copied from Luke. But, again, Bart Ehrman in his books does provide evidence that the gospel writers basically used each other as sources... though these were mostly word of mouth to begin with. There were no first source texts. There is a source called "J," I think, that many of these were drawn from but it would not have been a first source in any sense. Scribes copied these over and over and errors crept in: intentional and not.

There's also The Secret Gospel of Mark that Gnostics used. It's basically Mark with a less abrupt end and the stories fleshed out some. In Mark Jesus rides into a city and then leaves: nothing described regarding what happened. Secret fleshes that out. There's also a rather odd encounter with another male that seems like Jesus spent the night with him! But Secret "fleshes" that out too; well, actually "un-" fleshes it; making the encounter less suspicious.

I'd post a few links, but because this is my second post I can't. The software here (vs. "hard"ware... chuckle... considering the previous para. about Mark) won't allow me to until I get a few more posts. But I am finding the discussions fascinating.

[Toto]

Hi Ken - welcome to the boards.

I think you are referring to Q, a hypothetical early source for Matt and Luke. J is a hypothetical source for the Torah.

And please note - Secret Mark is now generally accepted to have been forged by Morton Smith. (via: amazon.co.uk)

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken Carman

According to what I have read and researched Mark is supposedly the first written, and most likely written by Mark himself.

First one written, yes, but it is difficult to see what you mean when you say it was written by Mark himself. Many, I daresay most, scholars doubt that the gospel was written by the John Mark known from Acts 12.12, 25; 15.37-39 or the Mark known from 1 Peter 5.13, Colossians 4.10, 2 Timothy 4.11, and Philemon 1.24. A lot of these scholars, however, harbor few doubts that somebody named Mark wrote the gospel. Is that all you meant?

(For whatever it may be worth, I myself tend to think that the figure called Mark or John Mark in the NT was indeed the author of the gospel; but I really think I am in the minority.)

There were no first source texts. There is a source called "J," I think, that many of these were drawn from but it would not have been a first source in any sense. Scribes copied these over and over and errors crept in: intentional and not.

The source called J is an alleged source for the Pentateuch, not for the gospels. The putative lost source for (two of) the gospels is called Q.

There's also The Secret Gospel of Mark that Gnostics used. It's basically Mark with a less abrupt end and the stories fleshed out some.

Two stories are fleshed out, but we have no evidence that the secret gospel of Mark had anything to do with the ending of that gospel. And many tend to think that secret Mark is a modern hoax or forgery, anyway.

Ben.

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by Ken Carman

My own theory about cults is rather simple. A dynamic leader; or one who is perceived as such... gathers followers who convince others.

Do you consider a group that is centered around an obviously non-historical character, say for example Abraham, to also be a cult?

[Transient]

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is just not tenable that Paul could have preached a gospel within a few years of the death an historical or figurative Jesus. He would have been fodder for the skeptics, fodder for the Jews.

During the 1st century, Judaea was under the rule of the Roman Empire, Paul's, or even Peter's gospel is of no use to a Jew while the Jewish Temple is still in active use.

The Jews already had a process established for hundred of years for atonement of sins. The historical or figurative Jesus is of no benefit for a Jew, he knows already how to get his sins forgiven. The Laws are already written and circulated presumed to have been laid down by the God of the Jews.

The Jews needed to be delivered from Roman rule, from paying taxes to the Roman Empire, from deciding their high priests, and from being forced to worship or honor the Caesars. Jesus, with whatever "flesh", did not deliver.

And with the outrageous features that Jesus was a God, who was resurrected and ascended to heaven, and must be worshipped by Jews to be saved from their sins with the Temple was still standing, both Paul and Peter would have probably been found dead, the very first day they made their claim public, whether or not Jesus had "flesh".

Actually that is an interesting angle I haven't seen before.
Until the temple was destroyed, supposedly confirming the prophecy of "Jesus", why would anyone bother listening to "christians", unless knowledge of his miracles and resurrection was widespread and accepted?
Certainly his prophecy would not have been of any value until after 70ad.

I wonder what evidence there is that any Jews were converted to "christianity" before 70ad.

Trouble is it is hard to believe anything that anyone writes about history, it is always skewed to the likes of the victors or those in power, especially back then when it was expensive to preserve writings and most people probably hardly ever read anything, but had it read to them maybe in a synagogue.

[show_no_mercy]

Originally Posted by Transient

Actually that is an interesting angle I haven't seen before.
Until the temple was destroyed, supposedly confirming the prophecy of "Jesus", why would anyone bother listening to "christians", unless knowledge of his miracles and resurrection was widespread and accepted?
Certainly his prophecy would not have been of any value until after 70ad.

I wonder what evidence there is that any Jews were converted to "christianity" before 70ad.

Trouble is it is hard to believe anything that anyone writes about history, it is always skewed to the likes of the victors or those in power, especially back then when it was expensive to preserve writings and most people probably hardly ever read anything, but had it read to them maybe in a synagogue.

aa does bring up a good point... but what would make it better is pointing out that the majority of the converts were Greek gentiles... and it's my own inference that very few were lifetime Jews. The Greeks ate up "mystery religions" like I eat Marshmallow Froot Loops for breakfast, especially considering that Paul's Christ seems sorta Gnostic. Paul could be preaching his "good news" to the gentiles and have been successful while the Temple was still standing, since the Temple's status doesn't have the significance to Greek gentiles that it does to Jews.

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by Transient

I wonder what evidence there is that any Jews were converted to "christianity" before 70ad.

There is none that can be considered credible. IMHO, Christianity as we know it, is a post 70 CE phenomenon based on earlier ideas.

Originally Posted by Transient

especially back then when it was expensive to preserve writings and most people probably hardly ever read anything, but had it read to them maybe in a synagogue.

The writings that remain today were, rather obviously, written by the literate minority, not the illiterate majority.

[aa5874]

Originally Posted by Transient

Trouble is it is hard to believe anything that anyone writes about history, it is always skewed to the likes of the victors or those in power, especially back then when it was expensive to preserve writings and most people probably hardly ever read anything, but had it read to them maybe in a synagogue.

But, the more the historical Jesus is examined, the more absurd and stupid the gospel story becomes.

Imagine that Jesus did exist, what is the good news, what is the gospel, in telling Jews that the Temple would be destroyed and that he ,Jesus, would be killed?

What foolishness!

Can you imagine the disciples telling other Jews, "I have wonderful news for you, Jesus the Saviour, the Messiah will be killed and the Temple will be destroyed and if you believe in Jesus your sins will be forgiven.

And then after Jesus is dead, Peter and Paul tells the Jews that Jesus is coming back a second time for those that are dead when God blows a trumpet.

What stupidity!

1Thessalonians 4.16

For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout. with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Paul supposedly made this statement after Jesus is dead and his body had disappeared while the Jewish Temple is still standing.

Is this good news?

Total nonsense!

An historical Jesus is just foolishness, stupid news, while the Jewish Temple was still standing.

The historical Jesus was good news to the dead.

[Transient]

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, the more the historical Jesus is examined, the more absurd and stupid the gospel story becomes.

Imagine that Jesus did exist, what is the good news, what is the gospel, in telling Jews that the Temple would be destroyed and that he ,Jesus, would be killed?

What foolishness!

Can you imagine the disciples telling other Jews, "I have wonderful news for you, Jesus the Saviour, the Messiah will be killed and the Temple will be destroyed and if you believe in Jesus your sins will be forgiven.

And then after Jesus is dead, Peter and Paul tells the Jews that Jesus is coming back a second time for those that are dead when God blows a trumpet.

What stupidity!

1Thessalonians 4.16

Paul supposedly made this statement after Jesus is dead and his body had disappeared while the Jewish Temple is still standing.

Is this good news?

Total nonsense!

An historical Jesus is just foolishness, stupid news, while the Jewish Temple was still standing.

The historical Jesus was good news to the dead.

Actually I always thought that the "good news" was that from that time on a gentile would no longer have to have his willy trimmed in order to become one of god's chosen people - all they had to do was to go along with the story that god had come down to earth and died for them so that they could live forever with him, and all that willy trimming stuff would be a thing of the past , to be forgotten forever.

Sure sounds like good news to me.

One strange thought came to me tho - what did a woman have trimmed before Jesus to become one of the chosen few?

[DCHindley]

No, a modern-day "cult" needs a living charismatic figure or figures to whip up frenzy.

A "cultus" does not, but represented a body of worship, and can focus on anyone or anything. Zeus, Juno, Cargo, Virgin Mary, Karl Marx, Blue Oysters, so yes ... Abraham. As unfocused as Eisenman was, at least he picked up on the significance of the figure of Abraham for a large number of folks of Northern Mesopotamian, Edomite, Iturean and Arabian ancestry. Paul brought this into relation with Judaism by linking them into Abram's (that was his name before he circumcised himself and became Abraham) faith in God's promises to Abram's offspring, which by various popular traditions included all of these peoples.

DCH

Originally Posted by spamandham

Do you consider a group that is centered around an obviously non-historical character, say for example Abraham, to also be a cult?