Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

Ian

I'm looking for the part yet that contradicts


Are we there yet?

OK, Yep. We can stop there.

But just to explain my repeated replies emphasising the same point several times - I am not so much arguing with you specifically, I’m thinking more about other people who read these HJ threads but who rarely if ever post anything.

And it’s in that respect, for the sake of other readers, that on issues such as this, I am loathe to let the last word be that we have three possible scenario’s for where, how, or why Paul obtained his Jesus belief, as if those three possibilities were all equally likely. When in fact two of those scenario’s are precisely the ones spelt out in Paul’s letter, and the third is something in complete contradiction which was never said by anyone.

I expect that any of us could think of dozens of different scenario’s as to how Paul might have really come to believe that Jesus was the messiah, and any one of those scenario’s might in fact be the real explanation … but in the absence of any supporting evidence, they are all worth less than the two actual scenario’s that Paul’s letter insists upon as the true explanation of his own beliefs.

It might be a different matter if Paul’s two scenarios were unlikely or not credible. But in fact his two explanations, i.e. a revelation granted by God and confirmation in the divine words of his OT bible, are precisely the same two explanations almost always given throughout history by all religious people as the origin of their beliefs - they almost all claim to have “found” their gods through visions and/or similar “personal experience”, and through an understanding insight found in their holy books.

 

[dejudge]

Unless the HJ hypothesis can come up with any group following anything like the 'historical Jesus' we'll probably be stuck with the messiah folks like Paul discovered through scriptural interpretation and the occasional vision.

Paul discovered messiah folks!!! Which "Paul" discovered messiah folks? And when did that happen? Where is the evidence of an historical Paul who wrote letters to Churches pre 70 CE?

May I remind you that even Apologetics admitted "Paul" knew of gLuke and Revelation and was ALIVE after they were composed.

See Origen's Commentary on Matthew, Eusebius' Church History and the Muratorian Canon.

We are NOT stuck with 'Paul' at all!!

The Pauline writers were known as Liars for hundreds of years since at least the 4th century.

See Macarius Magnes' Apocritus and Eusebius' "Against Hierocles".

 

[dejudge]

There is no other “hypothesis” of any earlier group knowing Jesus, except as your invention without evidence.

There is NO evidence to support an hypothesis that the Pauline writers wrote about a Jesus which was never believed to be on earth.


The Pauline Corpus is about the Killing of the Lord Jesus Christ, God's OWN Son who was raised from the dead.

The Pauline writers are claiming that people in Judea knew Jesus [the Lord from Heaven] BEFORE him.

1 Thessalonians 2

. 14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us..

Galatians 3:1 KJV

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth , crucified among you?

Romans 16:7 KJV

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

 

[maximara]

Why do you say that ? Because of the implausible elements ?

Here's another example: If I say "remember the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center using planes, in which 3000 people died ? President Bush made it happen to justify going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, using holograms and thermite !"

Someone could surmise that President Bush was a real person, and that such an attack probably occured (given a much larger text or context) even if the rest is ridiculous.

Sigh, we have already been over why dealing with why comparing Jesus story to anything post printing press is at best shows a piss poor understanding of history.

Your example is on par with the story that Nero himself set fire to Rome (an idea stated by both Suetonius and Tacitus). In fact, the comparison is not that far off as President Bush is on par with the Caesars of Rome who we have large amounts of material on (even the four they went through in one year) Furthermore, the Great Fire of Rome had the primary sources of Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus, and Pliny the Elder and there is archeological evidence.

There were (and are) many comparisons between Bush's Patriot Act and Hitler's Enabling Act. Given one of the long standing plausible theories about the Reichstag Fire is that Hitler had a few select members of his party (perhaps members of the SA) set the fire themselves (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457) and the claim that both Bush and Hitler said "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland", it doesn't take a genius to see where the idea that Bush was somehow involved in the World Trade Center bombing is coming from.

Given the way people misuse the term "hologram" we can dispense with that part and the thermite part can be traced to Steven E. Jones, a physicist of Brigham Young University and his paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” but you have to go and find other works to find out why he is talking nonsense.

We don't have anything even remotely like that for Jesus. In fact, every time we come to something we can check against history it has problems. The Gospel accounts read less then history and more like the 2nd century equivalent of Forest Gump, Zelig, or Forgotten Silver where totally fictional characters are plugged into history.

 

[dejudge]

That's right, and it's a point that keeps coming up. ALL history is a reconstruction. Reconstructions are often little more than at their hearts guesses. Some may be good guesses, others not so good. But we can never know with certainty.

Now that you have admitted that your reconstruction of the past is guesswork then you should have no difficulty with those who claim Jesus NEVER existed using the existing evidence from antiquity .

Even works by Tacitus have gone through many hands. Who knows whether they were editted by other hands after Tacitus? It may be even contemporary accounts by Tacitus of the Emperors of his day were editted or removed by Romans afterwards offended by those views. We don't know anything for certain. All we can do is analyse the texts and make our reconstructions.

Tacitus does not mention Jesus of Nazareth or Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin so your guessing will not help you.

Hundreds of Manuscripts and Codices have been recovered and they depict Jesus as the Son of a God, born of a Holy Ghost and God Creator.

There is no need to guess. Analyze the texts.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Myth--God Creator and born of a Holy Ghost.

 

[Belz...]

Sigh, we have already been over why dealing with why comparing Jesus story to anything post printing press is at best shows a piss poor understanding of history.

Your example is on par with the story that Nero himself set fire to Rome (an idea stated by both Suetonius and Tacitus). In fact, the comparison is not that far off as President Bush is on par with the Caesars of Rome who we have large amounts of material on (even the four they went through in one year) Furthermore, the Great Fire of Rome had the primary sources of Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus, and Pliny the Elder and there is archeological evidence.

There were (and are) many comparisons between Bush's Patriot Act and Hitler's Enabling Act. Given one of the long standing plausible theories about the Reichstag Fire is that Hitler had a few select members of his party (perhaps members of the SA) set the fire themselves (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457) and the claim that both Bush and Hitler said "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland", it doesn't take a genius to see where the idea that Bush was somehow involved in the World Trade Center bombing is coming from.

Given the way people misuse the term "hologram" we can dispense with that part and the thermite part can be traced to Steven E. Jones, a physicist of Brigham Young University and his paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” but you have to go and find other works to find out why he is talking nonsense.

Quick question: if you only had one longish text about the Reichstag fire, and doubted who started it, would you still conclude that it happened ?

 

[proudfootz]

Sigh, we have already been over why dealing with why comparing Jesus story to anything post printing press is at best shows a piss poor understanding of history.

Your example is on par with the story that Nero himself set fire to Rome (an idea stated by both Suetonius and Tacitus). In fact, the comparison is not that far off as President Bush is on par with the Caesars of Rome who we have large amounts of material on (even the four they went through in one year) Furthermore, the Great Fire of Rome had the primary sources of Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus, and Pliny the Elder and there is archeological evidence.

There were (and are) many comparisons between Bush's Patriot Act and Hitler's Enabling Act. Given one of the long standing plausible theories about the Reichstag Fire is that Hitler had a few select members of his party (perhaps members of the SA) set the fire themselves (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457) and the claim that both Bush and Hitler said "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland", it doesn't take a genius to see where the idea that Bush was somehow involved in the World Trade Center bombing is coming from.

Given the way people misuse the term "hologram" we can dispense with that part and the thermite part can be traced to Steven E. Jones, a physicist of Brigham Young University and his paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” but you have to go and find other works to find out why he is talking nonsense.

We don't have anything even remotely like that for Jesus. In fact, every time we come to something we can check against history it has problems. The Gospel accounts read less then history and more like the 2nd century equivalent of Forest Gump, Zelig, or Forgotten Silver where totally fictional characters are plugged into history.

Yes, if we had a similar situation with the Reichstag Fire or the WTC attacks and someone attributing the destruction either to angels disguised as humans we might accept that the buildings existed and were perhaps destroyed but have strong reservations about the angels...

 

[proudfootz]

Paul discovered messiah folks!!! Which "Paul" discovered messiah folks? And when did that happen? Where is the evidence of an historical Paul who wrote letters to Churches pre 70 CE?

The idea that I was trying to get across was that 'Paul' (which works whether 'Paul' as an individual existed or not) is portrayed as having discovered things about 'the messiah' in scriptures and visions, and that there may have been 'folks like Paul' who could do the same thing - misinterpret scripture and experience visions.

People do it to this day. Oral Roberts had a vision of a 900 foot tall Jesus. Perhaps that is an historical datum too, like all the things 'Paul' is supposed to have discovered.

May I remind you that even Apologetics admitted "Paul" knew of gLuke and Revelation and was ALIVE after they were composed.

See Origen's Commentary on Matthew, Eusebius' Church History and the Muratorian Canon.

We are NOT stuck with 'Paul' at all!!

The Pauline writers were known as Liars for hundreds of years since at least the 4th century.

See Macarius Magnes' Apocritus and Eusebius' "Against Hierocles".

Thanks for the reminder!

 

[proudfootz]

OK, Yep. We can stop there.

But just to explain my repeated replies emphasising the same point several times - I am not so much arguing with you specifically, I’m thinking more about other people who read these HJ threads but who rarely if ever post anything.

And it’s in that respect, for the sake of other readers, that on issues such as this, I am loathe to let the last word be that we have three possible scenarios for where, how, or why Paul obtained his Jesus belief, as if those three possibilities were all equally likely. When in fact two of those scenario’s are precisely the ones spelt out in Paul’s letter, and the third is something in complete contradiction which was never said by anyone.

I expect that any of us could think of dozens of different scenario’s as to how Paul might have really come to believe that Jesus was the messiah, and any one of those scenario’s might in fact be the real explanation … but in the absence of any supporting evidence, they are all worth less than the two actual scenario’s that Paul’s letter insists upon as the true explanation of his own beliefs.

It might be a different matter if Paul’s two scenarios were unlikely or not credible. But in fact his two explanations, i.e. a revelation granted by God and confirmation in the divine words of his OT bible, are precisely the same two explanations almost always given throughout history by all religious people as the origin of their beliefs - they almost all claim to have “found” their gods through visions and/or similar “personal experience”, and through an understanding insight found in their holy books.

In fact the explanation Paul actually does give is sufficient and there is no requirement to look any further or invent any alternate theory about 'disciples grieving over a recent death'.

 

[eight bits]

proudfootz

In fact the explanation Paul actually does give is sufficient and there is no requirement to look any further or invent any alternate theory about 'disciples grieving over a recent death'.

In fact? No, in your personal take on the text in hand. The explanation that Paul actually does give is that a buried man rose from the dead and was seen seen by survivors. I will, without apology, seek an alternate theory. Fortunately, no invention will be needed.

What Paul writes, in a compact span of text, is that a dead man's corpse was buried, and that later some surviving men exhibited a typical human grief response. That's what on the page. It raises no more of an issue to say that than to say that John 20 depicts a woman suffering from clinical shock. Both are descriptive statements, neither is explicative.

As we have repeatedly discussed without resolution, our differing opinions about recency here depend upon our disagreement about how to read other passages Paul wrote elsewhere. Those passages concern Paul's understanding of an earlier relationship between the man who was buried and his survivors. Disagreement with your theories about the meaning of a third party's written statements does not constitute "invention."

 

[IanS]

proudfootz


In fact? No, in your personal take on the text in hand. The explanation that Paul actually does give is that a buried man rose from the dead and was seen seen by survivors. I will, without apology, seek an alternate theory. Fortunately, no invention will be needed.

What Paul writes, in a compact span of text, is that a dead man's corpse was buried, and that later some surviving men exhibited a typical human grief response. That's what on the page. It raises no more of an issue to say that than to say that John 20 depicts a woman suffering from clinical shock. Both are descriptive statements, neither is explicative.

As we have repeatedly discussed without resolution, our differing opinions about recency here depend upon our disagreement about how to read other passages Paul wrote elsewhere. Those passages concern Paul's understanding of an earlier relationship between the man who was buried and his survivors. Disagreement with your theories about the meaning of a third party's written statements does not constitute "invention."

Eight bits - this is getting ridiculous. Paul’s letters actually do NOT say any of the following, which I quote as your exact phrasing -


1. "a buried man rose from the dead"
2. "was seen by survivors"
3. "a dead man's corpse was buried"
4. "some surviving men exhibited a typical human grief response"


Paul’s letters do not say that this messiah was a “man”, as if Paul knew or believed this messiah of the past to have been a human preacher.

And they do not describe anyone at all as “survivors”, as if those who witnessed their visions had “survived” from a time when they once knew a human Jesus.

By choosing to describe it those words, and actually saying that is how it was written in Paul’s letters, you are clearly attempting to parachute Jesus into existence.

Paul’s letters absolutely do not say this "Christ-Messiah” of the scriptures was a “man” or that he left any “survivors”.

Here is what the letters actually say on your points 1 to 4 -


1. “a buried man rose from the dead” - Not true. What the letter actually says is -

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,…”


2. “was seen by survivors”- Not true. No mention of any of these people as “survivors”. What the letter actually says is -

“ …he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

There is no mention there of anyone as “survivors”. Paul merely says that various other people were said to have once experienced an “apparition” (ie "he appeared”) of what they believed to be the messiah.

Paul does not even claim, and none of the rest ever claimed, that the apparition was of a risen human man named Jesus. For all we can tell from that passage, Paul may well have meant only that others before him had claimed to witness visions of the long awaited messiah of ancient Jewish religious legend. It may well be the case that it is only Paul who is telling them that he has discovered, "according to scripture" and by personal revelation from God, that their earlier visions were actually of a messiah named Jesus who was “abnormally born" and “risen” after death.


3. “a dead man's corpse was buried” - Not true again! Paul’s letter never describes this as a “dead man” in the form of a “corpse”. Nothing of the kind is said in the letter. What the letter actually says is only this -

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,… “


4. "some surviving men exhibited a typical human grief response"- Again, totally untrue. Nowhere in Paul’s letter does he say that this apparition was a “human grief response”. Nothing whatsoever of the kind is ever said in Paul’s letter. Here is what the letter actually says -

“ he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”



There is not one word there about anyone’s vision being a “human grief response”!

And just as a more general point on the above for any more objective neutral people reading this sort of stuff - the belief in a saving messiah had apparently been central to Jewish OT theology since at least 500BC, if not as far back as the time of King David and Moses circa.1000BC.

So 2000 years ago, in an age of almost unimaginable superstitious ignorance and extreme religious fanaticism, it would actually be surprising if it were not the case that religious fanatics like Paul and the others were constantly in the habit of claiming to experience such things as visions and the presence of “the Lord”.

Hence you have such things as speaking in tongues, casting out daemons from their dwelling inside peoples bodies, visions of being transported through the layers of heaven and seeing all sorts of religious apparitions on the journey, claiming visions of all manner of angels, demons and spirits on earth, etc. etc. Throughout that long history of extreme vivid religious fanatical imagination, people for centuries had probably frequently claimed to experience all manner of apparitions involving a believed messiah.

Here, for the 86th time, is what Paul’s letters actually said (apparently!) -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

The conversion in Paul's letters
In his surviving letters, Paul's own description of his conversion experience is brief. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians,[9:1] [15:3-8] he describes having seen the Risen Christ: — 1 Cor. 15:3–8.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.



Paul's Epistle to the Galatians also describes his conversion as a divine revelation, with God's Son appearing in Paul. — Galatians 1:11-16, NIV

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.
— Galatians 1:11-16, NIV

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz

In fact? No, in your personal take on the text in hand. The explanation that Paul actually does give is that a buried man rose from the dead and was seen seen by survivors. I will, without apology, seek an alternate theory. Fortunately, no invention will be needed.

Given what's on the page of Paul's writing, Paul is also a 'survivor' in your personal take on it (as is Oral Roberts and everyone posting here). Paul does not distinguish the visions anyone has of this cosmic christ from his own.

No need to apologise for seeking an alternate theory to replace a perfectly adequate one. Make it as complex as you like!

What Paul writes, in a compact span of text, is that a dead man's corpse was buried, and that later some surviving men exhibited a typical human grief response. That's what on the page.

I missed the word 'survivor' though. My bad!

It raises no more of an issue to say that than to say that John 20 depicts a woman suffering from clinical shock. Both are descriptive statements, neither is explicative.

If experiencing religious visions is a description of clinical grief, or whatever, it certainly explains a lot about some of the roots of religion. A pity Paul doesn't tell us what personal grief caused him to have a vision of someone he never met.

As we have repeatedly discussed without resolution, our differing opinions about recency here depend upon our disagreement about how to read other passages Paul wrote elsewhere. Those passages concern Paul's understanding of an earlier relationship between the man who was buried and his survivors.

Indeed, I haven't been able to agree that Paul has any 'understanding of any earlier relationship' anyone might have had with this christ who keeps popping up in visions.

Disagreement with your theories about the meaning of a third party's written statements does not constitute "invention."

My hypothesis up to this point is to try and take what's on the page as given.

He lists people who saw this cosmic christ:

and that he appeared to Cephas That's 1

and then to the Twelve + 12

he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time + 500

Then he appeared to James + 1

then to all the apostles + ?

last of all he appeared to me also + 1

____________________________________________

That makes 515 people having visions plus an unknown number of apostles.

Number of people described as having a 'earlier relationship' = ?

Maybe 1 - the 'Brother of the Lord'.

 

[dejudge]

My hypothesis up to this point is to try and take what's on the page as given.

He lists people who saw this cosmic Christ...

Your hypothesis is flawed from the very start.

The Pauline writer listed people who was seen of the RESURRECTED Jesus--Not a Cosmic Christ.

It is extremely important that your hypothesis is based on the EXISTING statement in 1 Corinthians--NOT imagination.

You cannot change the story. The BODY of Jesus, the God's Own Son, the Lord Jesus from heaven, was RAISED from the DEAD after he was Killed by the Jews.

1 Cor. 15

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep . 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

May I remind you Pauline writers claimed Jesus was Killed by the Jews.

The Pauline Jesus is NOT a Cosmic Christ.

The Pauline Jesus is God Incarnate.

Plus over 500 person was SEEN of the Resurrected Jesus BEFORE the Pauline writer.

Paul was the LAST, the LAST to be seen of Jesus AFTER he was Raised from the dead.

1 Cor. 15

and that he appeared to Cephas

and then to the Twelve

he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time

Then he appeared to James

then to all the apostles

last of all he appeared to me also

At least 512 persons knew the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus BEFORE the Pauline writers.

In the NT, Jesus was dead BEFORE he saw Paul.

When was Paul seen by the dead Jesus??

Where was Paul when Jesus was supposedly alive?

In Tarsus, Damascus, Arabia.......?.

It is blatantly obvious that the Pauline Corpus is NOT history but based on total fiction fabricated in an attempt to historicise non-historical accounts found in the written stories of Jesus, the Son of God, who was RAISED from the dead.

 

[maximara]

I don't get how it's a non sequitur, but ok.

Do you ever lie ? How can I trust anything you say ?

Vastly different situation.

Again on every major social-political point we can check such as how the Sanhedrin operated, Pontius Pilate's handling of Jewish mobs, the way Romans handled the bodies of the crucified, the way the Roman handled the disappearance of bodies from tombs and so on the Gospels are basically lying through their teeth. Yet were asked to trust the Jesus that the Jesus they describe was an actual person rather than some composite character ala Robin Hood or vision dream creation ala John Frum.

 

[proudfootz]

Your hypothesis is flawed from the very start.

The Pauline writer listed people who was seen of the RESURRECTED Jesus--Not a Cosmic Christ.

It is extremely important that your hypothesis is based on the EXISTING statement in 1 Corinthians--NOT imagination.

You cannot change the story. The BODY of Jesus, the God's Own Son, the Lord Jesus from heaven, was RAISED from the DEAD after he was Killed by the Jews.

It is extremely important you do not insert a clause blaming the Jews for killing Jesus into Corinthians.

On this reading the body of a resurrected Jesus was hanging around until Paul could meet him. This body of Jesus could have hung around afterwards, too. Could still be lurking in the shadows for all we know.

May I remind you Pauline writers claimed Jesus was Killed by the Jews.

In some places he places responsibility on the 'Archons of the Age' - the Jews certainly were not the rulers of the world by any means.

Is the interpolation blaming the Jews for this in Corinthians?

The Pauline Jesus is NOT a Cosmic Christ.

The Pauline Jesus is God Incarnate.

I may be using the terms in a way unfamiliar to you.

I am using 'cosmic christ' to mean a divine being like a god.

Plus over 500 person was SEEN of the Resurrected Jesus BEFORE the Pauline writer.

Paul was the LAST, the LAST to be seen of Jesus AFTER he was Raised from the dead.

But Paul is in no position to know who afterwards might also have had visions of Jesus. People to this day have them.

At least 512 persons knew the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus BEFORE the Pauline writers.

That is implicit in what I quoted. That is Paul's claim.

In the NT, Jesus was dead BEFORE he saw Paul.

As far as evidence from Paul is concerned, no one is recorded as having seen Jesus before he died, or saw him die.

When was Paul seen by the dead Jesus??

Where was Paul when Jesus was supposedly alive?

In Tarsus, Damascus, Arabia.......?.

Maybe Paul wasn't born yet - Paul does not specify when or where this dying-then-rising took place. If he knew he wouldn't have to search scriptures for clues.

It is blatantly obvious that the Pauline Corpus is NOT history but based on total fiction fabricated in an attempt to historicise non-historical accounts found in the written stories of Jesus, the Son of God, who was RAISED from the dead.

In my view Paul does no 'historicizing' of Jesus - that's what the 'gospel tales' are for. For Paul Jesus only takes human form long enough to get killed by some demons in a super secret plan to defeat Death, or something.

No miraculous birth, no baptism by John, no gathering of disciples, no public preaching, no cleansing of temples, no cursing of fig trees, no healings, no exorcisms, no conflict with Jewish authorities, no Pilate, etc etc etc.

 

[dejudge]

Vastly different situation.

Again on every major social-political point we can check such as how the Sanhedrin operated, Pontius Pilate's handling of Jewish mobs, the way Romans handled the bodies of the crucified, the way the Roman handled the disappearance of bodies from tombs and so on the Gospels are basically lying through their teeth. Yet were asked to trust the Jesus that the Jesus they describe was an actual person rather than some composite character ala Robin Hood or vision dream creation ala John Frum.

The Gospels may not be lies. The authors are unknown and they did not claim they were writing historical accounts.

It is the Pauline writers who can be considered liars or false witnesses because they Testified that they were witnesses that God Raised Jesus from when the DEAD RISE NOT.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

 

[pakeha]

Quick question: if you only had one longish text about the Reichstag fire, and doubted who started it, would you still conclude that it happened ?

First of all, I love your new avatar- nice comment!

We've had Stone calling people who doubt the existence of an HJ book burners and Kool-Aid drinkers.
We've had Gdon compare those who point out the absurdity of the Criteria of Embarrassment to Creationists.
Belz..., is it really necessary to scrape the barrel with an example which is next of kin to a Godwin?

Wouldn't a better example be, if the only document we had of the American civil war was Gone With the Wind, could we conclude Scarlett O'Hara was a real person?

Or even better yet, was there an historical Esther? Or an Historical Ruth?

Please keep in mind that the documents we have about Jesus are hagiography and devotional literature, more akin to narrative theology than anything else.

ETA

[ . . .] It is the Pauline writers who can be considered liars or false witnesses because they Testified that they were witnesses that God Raised Jesus from when the DEAD RISE NOT.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

Thanks for reminding us of Paul's* essential character as a flim-flam artist.



* or the Pauline writers', if you will

 

[dejudge]

It is extremely important you do not insert a clause blaming the Jews for killing Jesus into Corinthians.

Your statement is not logical. You inserted "cosmic Christ" into Corinthians when there is no such character in the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus.

It is a fact that in the Pauline Corpus it is claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus and that Jesus was Raised from the dead.

Where did you get your cosmic Christ from?

In Corinthians and the Pauline Corpus the character called Jesus is God Incarnate, the Lord from heaven, God Creator and was made in the likeness of men.

As far as evidence from Paul is concerned, no one is recorded as having seen Jesus before he died, or saw him die.

It is claimed the Jews Killed Jesus in 1 Thessalonians so it is expected that the Jews would have seen him BEFORE they killed him if it did happen.

Do you not remember that Paul claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD Day and was seen by over 500 persons.

Please, please, please!!! It is claimed Everyone in the NT was bodily raised from the dead like Lazarus. He resurrected AFTER 4 days and was beginning to ROT.

Lazarus was NOT cosmic in the NT.

Lazarus was a man.

Jesus was GOD in the likeness of a MAN.[God Incarnate]

In my view Paul does no 'historicizing' of Jesus - that's what the 'gospel tales' are for. For Paul Jesus only takes human form long enough to get killed by some demons in a super secret plan to defeat Death, or something.

The Pauline writers attempted to historicise the RESURRECTION of Jesus. The Resurrection of Jesus is the single most important event in the Pauline Corpus.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV---And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

2. 1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV --Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

3. Galatians 1:1 KJV ---Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.


4. Romans 1:4 KJV--- And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

5. Philippians 3:10 KJV --That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death

No miraculous birth, no baptism by John, no gathering of disciples, no public preaching, no cleansing of temples, no cursing of fig trees, no healings, no exorcisms, no conflict with Jewish authorities, no Pilate, etc etc etc.

Your observation is flawed. You ASSUMED the Pauline Corpus was early and was used in the early development of the Jesus story and cult.

Secondly, there are hundreds of Epistles and letters without the miracles and life of Jesus.

See the letters of Augustine and Jerome.

Now, examine Acts of the Apostles. There is NOT a single mention of a Pauline letter.

Why are you assuming the Pauline writers should have written about the life and miracles of Jesus when you cannot present any corroborative evidence that he was a contemporary of James, Cephas and John.

Apologetic writers claimed the Pauline writer knew of gLuke and commended it.

It is claimed the author of gLuke was a disciple of Paul.

 

[David Mo]

Sure. As I said before; you are simply presenting an unsupported un-evidenced set of personally preferred assumptions in contradiction to the known factual evidence.

"Factual"? You are assuming as "facts" the claims of a fanatical believer immersed in a battle for power, trying to place himself in the summit due to his personal relation of divinity. Wonderful "factual evidence"!

Not all inferences are "personally". There are plausible inferences. And the hypothesis that Paul spoke about Jesus in their journeys to Jerusalem is a very plausible one. Nothing extraordinary on it. It would be extraordinary if he had not done it.

 

[IanS]

"Factual"? You are assuming as "facts" the claims of a fanatical believer immersed in a battle for power, trying to place himself in the summit due to his personal relation of divinity. Wonderful "factual evidence"!

No. You need to read the post again. What I described as the "fact", was the existence of P46 with it's words translated to give the quotes from Corinthians and Galatians. It is apparently claimed as a "fact" (not claimed by me, but claimed by bible scholars and others) that p46 exists, and that P46 and/or other existing translated mss contain the above quoted passages from Corinthians and Galatians.