The Historical Jesus III

[Mcreal]

The funny thing is all of these works avoid the key question:

Why do the Christians themselves give such wildly different accounts in the apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE)?​

The apocryphal Acts of Paul is really weird as it has Nero reacting to talk of sedition rather then using the Christians as a patsy for the Great Fire.

Cheers. Acts of Paul is very interesting, and also seems to align with both Einhorn's and Raskin's arguments -

II. But Nero, when he heard of the death of Patroclus, was sore grieved, and when he came in from the bath he commanded another to be set over the wine. But his servants told him, saying: 'Caesar, Patroclus liveth and standeth at the table.' And Caesar, hearing that Patroclus lived, was affrighted and would not go in. But when he went in, he saw Patroclus, and was beside himself, and said: 'Patroclus, livest thou?' And he said: 'I live, Caesar.' And he said: 'Who is he that made thee to live?' And the lad, full of the mind of faith, said: 'Christ Jesus, the king of the ages.' And Caesar was troubled and said: 'Shall he, then, be king of the ages and overthrow all kingdoms?' Patroclus saith unto him: 'Yea, he overthroweth all kingdoms and he alone shall be for ever, and there shall be no kingdom that shall escape him.' And he smote him on the face and said: 'Patroclus, art thou also a soldier of that king?' And he said: 'Yea, Lord Caesar, for he raised me when I was dead.' And Barsabas Justus of the broad feet, and Urion the Cappadocian, and Festus the Galatian, Caesar's chief men, said: 'We also are soldiers of the king of the ages. And he shut them up in prison, having grievously tormented them, whom he loved much, and commanded the soldiers of the great king to be sought out, and set forth a decree to this effect, that all that were found to be Christians and soldiers of Christ should be slain.'

III. And among many others Paul also was brought, bound: unto whom all his fellow-prisoners gave heed; so that Caesar perceived that he was over the camp. And he said to him: 'Thou that art the great king's man, but my prisoner, how thoughtest thou well to come by stealth into the government of the Romans and levy soldiers out of my province?' But Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, said before them all: '0 Caesar, not only out of thy province do we levy soldiers, but out of the whole world. For so hath it been ordained unto us, that no man should be refused who wisheth to serve my king. And if it like thee also to serve him (Lat. thou wilt not repent thereof: but think not that the wealth, &c., which seems better), it is not wealth nor the splendour that is now in this life that shall save thee; but if thou submit and entreat him, thou shalt be saved; for in one day (or one day) he shall fight against the world with fire.' And when Caesar heard that, he commanded all the prisoners to be burned with fire, but Paul to be beheaded after the law of the Romans.

But Paul kept not silence concerning the word, but communicated with Longus the prefect and Cestus the centurion.

Nero therefore went on (was) (perhaps add 'raging') in Rome, slaying many Christians without a hearing, by the working of the evil one; so that the Romans stood before the palace and cried It sufficeth, Caesar! for the men are our own! thou destroyest the strength of the Romans! Then at that he was persuaded and ceased, and commanded that no man should touch any Christian, until he should learn throughly concerning them.

IV. Then was Paul brought unto him after the decree; and he abode by his word that he should be beheaded. And Paul said: 'Caesar, it is not for a little space that I live unto my king; and if thou behead me, this will I do: I will arise and show myself unto thee that I am not dead but live unto my Lord Jesus Christ, who cometh to judge the world.'

But Longus and Cestus said unto Paul: 'Whence have ye this king, that ye believe in him and will not change your mind, even unto death?' And Paul communicated unto them the word and said: 'Ye men that are in this ignorance and error, change your mind and be saved from the fire that cometh upon all the world: for we serve not, as ye suppose, a king that cometh from the earth, but from heaven, even the living God, who because of the iniquities that are done in this world, cometh as a judge; and blessed is that man who shall believe in him and shall live for ever when he cometh to burn the world and purge it throughly.' Then they beseeching him said: 'We entreat thee, help us, and we will let thee go.' But he answered and said: 'I am not a deserter of Christ, but a lawful soldier of the living God: if I had known that I should die, O Longus and Cestus, I would have done it, but seeing that I live unto God and love myself, I go unto the Lord, to come with him in the glory of his Father.' They say unto him: 'How then shall we live when thou art beheaded?'

V. And while they yet spake thus, Nero sent one Parthenius and Pheres to see if Paul were already beheaded; and they found him yet alive. And he called them to him and said: 'Believe on the living God, which raiseth me and all them that believe on him from the dead.' And they said: 'We go now unto Nero; but when thou diest and risest again, then will we believe on thy God.' And as Longus and Cestus entreated him yet more concerning salvation, he saith to them: 'Come quickly unto my grave in the morning and ye shall find two men praying, Titus and Luke. They shall give you the seal in the Lord.'

Then Paul stood with his face to the east and lifted up his hands unto heaven and prayed a long time, and in his prayer he conversed in the Hebrew tongue with the fathers, and then stretched forth his neck without speaking. And when the executioner (speculator) struck off his head, milk spurted upon the cloak of the soldier. And the soldier and all that were there present when they saw it marvelled and glorified God which had given such glory unto Paul: and they went and told Caesar what was done.

VI. And when he heard it, while he marvelled long and was in perplexity, Paul came about the niuth hour, when many philosophers and the centurion were standing with Caesar, and stood before them all and said: "Caesar, behold, I, Paul, the soldier of God, am not dead, but live in my God. But unto thee shall many evils befall and great punishment, thou wretched man, because thou hast shed unjustly the blood of the righteous, not many days hence." And having so said Paul departed from him. But Nero hearing it and being greatly troubled commanded the prisoners to be loosed, and Patroclus also and Barsabas and them that were with him.

VII. And as Paul charged them, Longus and Cestus the centurion went early in the morning and approached with fear unto the grave of Paul. And when they were come thither they saw two men praying, and Paul betwixt them, so that they beholding the wondrous marvel were amazed, but Titus and Luke being stricken with the fear of man when they saw Longus and Cestus coming toward them, turned to flight. But they pursued after them, saying: We pursue you not for death but for life, that ye may give it unto us, as Paul promised us, whom we saw just now standing betwixt you and praying. And when they heard that, Titus and Luke rejoiced and gave them the seal in the Lord, glorifying the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Copt. and glorified the Lord Jesus Christ and all the saints).

Unto whom be glory world without end. Amen.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspaul.html

and

Philip Sellew writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 202):

A 2d-century Christian writing recounting the missionary career and death of the apostle Paul and classed among the NT Apocrypha. In this work Paul is pictured as traveling from city to city, converting gentiles and proclaiming the need for a life of sexual abstinence and other encratite practices.

... Individual sections were transmitted separately by the medieval manuscript tradition (Lipsius 1891), most importantly by the Acts of Paul and Thekla and the Martyrdom of Paul, both extant in the original Greek and several ancient translations.

Manuscript discoveries in the last century have added considerable additional material. The most important of these include a Greek papyrus of the late 3d century, now at Hamburg (10 pages), a Coptic papyrus of the 4th or 5th century, now at Heidelberg (about 80 pages), and a Greek papyrus of correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians (3 Corinthians = Testuz 1959), now at Geneva. These finds have confirmed that the Thekla cycle and story of Paul's martyrdom were originally part of the larger Acts of Paul (details in Bovon 1981 or NTApocr.).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspaul.html

 

[GDon]

BTW, I have asked already. This Raskin. Has anyone got the dope on his academic credentials? Like for Carrier.

I've crossed swords with him a few times on FRDB and EarlyWritings forums. He has posted there in the past as "Philosopher Jay" or "jayraskin". AFAIK he doesn't have any relevant academic credentials. Like some, he doesn't care what the question is, as long as the answer is "No historical Jesus". These are the people who will bring up some odd theory about the origins of Christianity, and -- without examining whether that theory is viable themselves -- expect historicists to invest in the time to refute it.

 

[dejudge]

I've crossed swords with him a few times on FRDB and EarlyWritings forums. He has posted there in the past as "Philosopher Jay" or "jayraskin". AFAIK he doesn't have any relevant academic credentials. Like some, he doesn't care what the question is, as long as the answer is "No historical Jesus".

What a big joke!!! Does GDon have any relevant academic credentials?

It is most fascinating that a person who admits to be a Christian and admits the Bible is nothing but "a collection of myths and fables" is now giving the impression that one needs relevant academic credentials to state that Jesus is a figure of mythology in the collection of myths and fables called the Bible.


What double standard!!!

The Christian Bible is indeed a collection of myths and fables and Jesus is the MAIN MYTH character in the NT.

Only Jesus was described as a Transfiguring Walter walking Son of a God from heaven born of a Ghost.

You seem to have NO idea that the argument for an HJ MUST, MUST, MUST be based on the RELEVANT historical data from antiquity--not credentials.

Obscure HJ has none of the relevant historical data except for the FAKE Shroud of Turin.

 

[Mcreal]

The issue of Christian focus on the Nero persecution is an interesting one. As Arthur Drews noted in the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus -

But how could the legend arise that Nero was the first to persecute the Christians? It arose, says Hochart, under a threefold influence. The first is the apocalyptic idea, which saw in Nero the Antichrist, the embodiment of all evil, the terrible adversary of the Messiah and his followers. As such he was bound, by a kind of natural enmity, to have been the first to persecute the Christians; as Sulpicius puts it, “because vice is always the enemy of the good.”[68] The second is the political interest of the Christians in representing themselves as Nero's victims, in order to win the favour and protection of his successors on that account. The third is the special interest of the Roman Church in the death of the two chief apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome. Then the author of the letters of Seneca to Paul enlarged the legend in its primitive form, brought it into agreement with the ideas of this time, and gave it a political turn. The vague charges of incendiarism assumed a more definite form, and were associated with the character of Antichrist, which the Church was accustomed to ascribe to Nero on account of his supposed diabolical cruelty. He was accused of inflicting horrible martyrdoms on the Christians, and thus the legend in its latest form reached the Chronicle of Sulpicius. Finally a clever forger (Poggio?) smuggled the dramatic account of this persecution into the Annals of Tacitus, and thus secured the acceptance as historical fact of a purely imaginary story.

And even the non-apocryphal narrative about Paul is close to this.

From Wikipedia -

He arrived in Rome c. 60 and spent another two years under house arrest (beyond his two years in prison in Caesarea).[18][Acts 28:16]

The Bible does not say how or when Paul died. There is an early tradition by Ignatius, probably around 110 AD, that Paul was martyred.[85] Dionysius of Corinth in a letter to the Romans (166–174 AD), stated that Paul and Peter were martyred in Italy.[86] Eusebius also cites the Dionysius passage.[87]

Traditional manner of execution
Christian tradition holds that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero around the mid-60s at Tre Fontane Abbey (English: Three Fountains Abbey).[88]

Tertullian in his Prescription Against Heretics (200 AD) writes that Paul had a similar death to that of John the Baptist, who was beheaded.[89]

Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History (320 AD) testifies that Paul was beheaded in Rome and Peter crucified. He wrote that the tombs of these two apostles, with their inscriptions, were extant in his time; and quotes as his authority a holy man of the name of Caius.[90]

Lactantius wrote that Nero "crucified Peter, and slew Paul." (318 AD)[91]

Jerome in his De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) (392 AD) states that Paul was beheaded at Rome.[92]

John Chrysostom (c. 349–407) wrote that Nero knew Paul personally and had him killed.[93]

Sulpicius Severus says Nero killed Peter and Paul. (403 AD)[94]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#His_final_days_spent_in_Rome

 

[dejudge]

Cheers. Acts of Paul is very interesting, and also seems to align with both Einhorn's and Raskin's arguments -

Please read the passage carefully.

Paul was seen ALIVE after he was supposed to be dead [beheaded].

Paul came about the niuth hour, when many philosophers and the centurion were standing with Caesar, and stood before them all and said: "Caesar, behold, I, Paul, the soldier of God, am not dead, but live in my God......

Paul survived in "Acts of Paul".

Please tell us when did Paul really die if he was seen alive in Acts of Paul after he had his head cut-off???

Christians of antiquity had NO idea when Paul really lived, died, or what he wrote.

 

[Mcreal]

I've crossed swords with him a few times on FRDB and EarlyWritings forums. He has posted there in the past as "Philosopher Jay" or "jayraskin". AFAIK he doesn't have any relevant academic credentials. Like some, he doesn't care what the question is, as long as the answer is "No historical Jesus". These are the people who will bring up some odd theory about the origins of Christianity, and -- without examining whether that theory is viable themselves -- expect historicists to invest in the time to refute it.

Except

• evidence of similar transposition of events from the mid-1st century to earlier time frames has been documented by Einhorn;
• silence about crucifixions from 6BC/BCE until the mid-1st century; and
• the lack of anti-Christian action under Tiberius is note by
  • Tacitus in Histories 5:9, and
  • in Ad Nationes

support Raskin's contention in this case

 

[Mcreal]

Please read the passage [Acts of Paul] carefully.

Paul was seen ALIVE after he was supposed to be dead [beheaded].

Paul survived in "Acts of Paul".

Please tell us when did Paul really die if he was seen alive in Acts of Paul after he had his head cut-off???

Christians of antiquity had NO idea when Paul really lived, died, or what he wrote.

I quoted it for it placing Paul with Nero, and for the fact that Paul seemed to resurrect, as

1. support for arguments about Christian hyperbole about persecutions under Nero, and
2. support for Einhorn's arguments about the narrative about Paul being similar to the narrative about Jesus

 

[GDon]

Except

• evidence of similar transposition of events from the mid-1st century to earlier time frames has been documented by Einhorn;
• silence about crucifixions from 6BC/BCE until the mid-1st century; and
• the lack of anti-Christian action under Tiberius is note by
  • Tacitus in Histories 5:9, and
  • in Ad Nationes

support Raskin's contention in this case

I don't know. Does it? But let's say it does. On a forum called "international skeptics", what happens next? What would a skeptic do? Has it changed your mind at all? If so, in what way?

I've seen theory after theory being produced on these kinds of boards, produced by interested amateurs on the topic. Nearly all of them have some kind of evidence, or reasoning based on evidence, or claims of evidence. Few of them seem plausible once they are investigated in any depth. Yet few proponents appear to investigate them in any depth. The proponents just present the claim, and leave it at that. Are these the actions of a skeptic? Should a skeptic give provisional approval to a new theory that has had no investigation from the skeptic or third party? I would say no.

This is brought up because I've seen Jay Raskin propose a number of interesting theories on FRDB and BCF. A few posts are spent on them, then it is dropped and the next one proposed. And the burden of proof is always put on the other person, not the person proposing the theory.

That's not just a problem with Biblical Studies and the historical Jesus, but in any field where people want to dispute the mainstream. But skeptics should be different.

End of rant!

 

[Leumas]

I don't know. Does it? But let's say it does. On a forum called "international skeptics", what happens next? What would a skeptic do? Has it changed your mind at all? If so, in what way?

Anything that might happen next will not be as astoundingly mind warping as this

... not long after I converted from agnosticism to theism, and then to a liberal Christianity (I won't go into reasons why here). Even though I'd never thought the Bible was anything other than a collection of myths and fables,...

 

[maximara]

I've crossed swords with him a few times on FRDB and EarlyWritings forums. He has posted there in the past as "Philosopher Jay" or "jayraskin". AFAIK he doesn't have any relevant academic credentials. Like some, he doesn't care what the question is, as long as the answer is "No historical Jesus". These are the people who will bring up some odd theory about the origins of Christianity, and -- without examining whether that theory is viable themselves -- expect historicists to invest in the time to refute it.

The aspects of Tacitus's Annals 15.44 thread at Biblical Criticism & History Forum (ie Earlywritings) forum kicks this around for a while.

While it is true the author has an issue with his 'ri' I have shown that 19th century works were rendering the chrstus as Chrestus indicating the author also had 're' issues as well...or the authors of those works were overreaching with the Suetonius Chrestus connection.

This brings up another thing...why isn't the "c" in chrstus uppercase?

As for the "doesn't have any relevant academic credentials" neither did Louis Pasteur regarding microbiology...he was a chemist NOT a doctor or biologist. In fact, Paul de Kruif 1926 Microbe Hunters commented "It is doubtful if he have told a lung from a liver, and it certain that he did not know the first thing about how to hold a scalpel".

 

[David Mo]

They misinterpreted the OT as describing a messiah that will die and suffer for the people and be killed.
So they believed that stuff.

Well done.... nice hypothesis....

Once again you misunderstand my point.

Let us suppose that some texts of the Old Testament speak about a messiah that die and suffers for the people and was killed. I think these texts don’t exist, but let us suppose for the purpose of this discussion between us. If these texts exist it will be normal that Pauline Christians had taken them as a base of an invention of a suffering messiah. No problem. But the difficulty with this hypothesis consists in that the messiah invented was crucified by the Romans. If we suppose that people usually look for means adequate to their ends, and the end of Pauline Christians was the proselytism among the Romans, to invent a messiah crucified, this is to say, executed for rebellion, was not consistent in any way. Furthermore, the crucifixion was an infamous punishment in Rome. It was not consistent as a choice. It was an inconsistent mean to their ends. More likely other alternative death would be chosen. So, my hypothesis is not only nice (thank you!), but more consistent than the “historicist” hypothesis. And the logic implies we ought to reject the more inconsistent hypothesis in favour of the more consistent one. This is logic. Neither imbecilic nor asinine.

And I have put an example: Imagine you were in a modern sect. Would you invent a prophet executed as a serial killer, paedophile and rapist?. And if you had to invent a prophet for the American people you would not chose a Bin Laden, for sure.

You are RATIONALIZING FAIRY TALES!!!
Have you considered that according to the FAIRY TALES the people who were supposedly there and believed in the killed messiah were not OT experts and most of them couldn't even read or write.

Don’t shout, please. You don't have more arguments when you shout.
Every Jew that attended the religious service in the Synagogue knew the Bible well because the reading of the Bible was an important part of it.

Is a typical modern day MYTH-MAKER asinine casuistry and pathetic apologetic sophistry.

“Imbecilic”, “asinine”… I didn’t know these words. Thank you for aiding to improve my English vocabulary.

But you are wrong again. The myths about the Christ don’t appear from the mere claim of the existence of Jesus. Myths are caused by the believe in the deeds and sayings of the gospels. I reject the idea of an historical Jesus. I put an insurmountable barrier on this point. I don’t know how my barricade can cause any mythical idea.

PS: In any case, it is a subject to reflexion why some of yours become so nervous for a simple idea without any important impact. With respect, your scepticism sometimes sounds similar to religious positions. It doesn’t support any slight contradiction. This worries me.

 

[dejudge]

I quoted it for it placing Paul with Nero, and for the fact that Paul seemed to resurrect, as

1. support for arguments about Christian hyperbole about persecutions under Nero, and
2. support for Einhorn's arguments about the narrative about Paul being similar to the narrative about Jesus

Fiction has no historical value.

The claim that Paul was seen alive AFTER his head was cut-off shows that Christian writings about Paul are historically worthless.

Once it was claimed Paul was still alive AFTER he had his head cut-off then it is not known when he actually died.

It would appear Paul was a fiction character who could Not die in "Acts of Paul".

If fiction had historical value then Jesus of Nazareth was Romulus or Perseus.

Jesus of Nazareth, Romulus the founder of Rome and Perseus were born of Ghosts/Gods and Virgins.

 

[Mcreal]

The claim that Paul was seen alive AFTER his head was cut-off shows that Christian writings about Paul are historically worthless.

It wasn't a claim by me. I was recounting an apocryphyl gospel.

This is nonsense.

Once it was claimed Paul was still alive AFTER he had his head cut-off then it is not known when he actually died.

It' a non-sequitur.

The rest of your post is nonsense too, dejudge.

 

[Craig B]

The claim that Paul was seen alive AFTER his head was cut-off shows that Christian writings about Paul are historically worthless.

Once it was claimed Paul was still alive AFTER he had his head cut-off then it is not known when he actually died.

Unless the Christian writers are wrong WHEN they say that Paul remained alive AFTER his head was cut off. I think THAT they are wrong, dejudge. But you believe IN the Infallibility of the hagiographic WRITINGS of the Fathers and Teachers of HOLY Mother Church.

 

[IanS]

On another point. Paul, the Mythicists tell us, derived his christology from the OT. He started with no reality whatsoever, spent time perusing the Tanakh, and concocted an elaborate Jesus character entirely from this source.

Who is the "mythicist" here telling you that?

Please name the "mythicist" who told you that here.

Very well. But what's this? Dear me, when the OT really talks about the Messiah, it says things completely different from what Paul says about Christ.

Not true. Actual truth is - Paul's letters (whoever wrote those) actually say almost nothing about the "Christ". And what little he does say about his christ belief, is that he thought it was all foretold in the ancient scriptures. That's what he thought the scriptures meant to say.

So the intrepid MJ fans have to say, well it's not there really, but Paul made it all up, and he thought he was seeing a crucified Messiah in the OT, when he wasn't. So he not only made something up out of nothing, but the material he used to make the something from the nothing was delusional. Very convincing indeed. (Joke)

Again completely untrue. It really, IS there. What is not there is a verbatim sentence saying that the true "Christ" will be called "Jesus" and that in 533 years time he will be crucified by a Roman official named Pontius Pilate. Instead, like all OT prophecies, what IS there, are various ambiguous and fancifully worded prophecies and statements which later Christians such as "Paul" and the gospel writers (whoever they were) might very easily have interpreted to be coded prophecies meaning that the "Christ" would be crucified and suffer for the sins of mankind.

And if anyone really doubts that, here is what Paul’s letter actually says in 1-Corinthians -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle
—1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV

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.


Readers other than Craig, should notice several things about that absolutely crucial passage -

1. Paul does not even mention any crucifixion there.

2. He says it was something he "received" ... and that this can only mean "received from God", because elsewhere he insists repeatedly that he learnt this "from no man", and "nor was I taught it by anyone", but instead "God was pleased to reveal his son in me".

3. He specifically says that "Christ died ... according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures". So he certainly did believe that the death that he (Paul) described for Jesus, was indeed written in the scriptures.

4. He does not, in fact, even mention the name Jesus! He just says that this was the "Christ" ... where the word "Christ" is simply a Greek translation of the much older Hebrew OT word "messiah", meaning anointed by God as a special leader or saviour of the Jewish people. It's not even necessarily any individual named Jesus!


But in any case, whatever anyone here thinks of my other comments in 1 to 4 above, the plain unarguable fact is that the passage in 1-Corinthians makes explicitly clear and quite unarguable that the writer "Paul" was very clearly saying that he obtained the idea of the death and resurrection of "Christ", i.e. a death which elsewhere he says was through crucifixion, was indeed obtained by him as his understanding of what had been written in the scriptures!

So somewhere in that writing of what "Paul" regarded as "scripture" , Paul believed that it was indeed written that the "Christ" would die crucified, and be raised on the third day.

That is really all that should ever need to be explained to any impartial truly objective open-minded reader here. It does not literally "prove" anything, because this a subject where it could never be possible to get anywhere remotely near a literal proof of what Paul really believed or said 2000 years ago. But what it does very clearly show, and quite unarguably so, is that in the writing of "Paul" the writer most certainly did believe (or at least, he insists that he believed), that god had granted him a divine insight into the true meaning of "Christ prophecy" in the ancient scriptures, from which he (Paul) says in unarguable terms that he believed the scripture itself showed him 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".

So whatever Craig may wish to believe, the fact of the matter is that Paul makes very clear that he definitely did believe that passages such as those I posted in the previous reply, i.e. what Paul regarded “scripture”, did indeed say, in Paul’s understanding, that the “Christ” who he believed had died (believed "crucified") and was then resurrected, was indeed foretold in those passages from scripture.

And similarly, as pointed out in the previous post (with the Wiki quote), the writers of g-Mark and g-Mathew were also describing part of their crucifixion scene using words copied directly from those same OT scriptures. So they too were certainly taking their crucifixion belief from OT scripture.

What Craig wants to say is that there really was a figure of Jesus actually known to Paul at the time (e.g. through conversations with his actual brother James), and that Paul therefore knew this real Jesus person had indeed been crucified not long before (not long because he was a brother of the then living “James”), and that when Paul wrote about that crucifixion he refused to say that James or anyone had told him about it and instead took all the credit himself by saying nobody had told him any such thing and that he had personally found it foretold 500 years before in scripture. And further, what Craig wants to say is that the gospel writers did exactly same, i.e. that they personally somehow knew of a real crucifixion, and merely decided to retro-fit that story with the ancient prophecies of scripture, so that it sounded like it was a confirmation of what had been written 500 years before.

Only problem with that is (a) there is absolutely no evidence at all of any living person called Jesus who was executed, i.e. nothing at all except for the religious beliefs of anonymous gospel writers who had never met Jesus and never seen any such execution, and (b) Paul explicitly says that his belief in the death and resurrection of the “Christ”, was indeed foretold in scripture, and he insists that it was the scriptures which showed him this, such that he was “not taught it by anyone” and nor was he “told it by anyone”, instead it was through divine revelation from God where he says “God was pleased to reveal his Son in me” ... it was a “Revelation”, it was not a real event and not something he heard about from anyone as something that had actually happened.

And finally on all of that - we have just had that long disagreement with GDon where he says that Carrier was certainly wrong to claim that in the book of Zechariah from 520 BC, it actually describes a figure named “Jesus” who is a pre-existent celestial being etc., and where GDon said I was wrong ever to mention that Carrier had described that passage with references and quotes etc., but where at GDon’s insistence I took the trouble to look quite carefully through that particular passage in Zechariah, only to find that it’s quite obvious why Carrier can indeed claim that passage does talk about a figure named Jesus who is revealed to Zechariah by God, i.e. God reveals to Zechariah, that this apparently normal human called “Jesus” is in reality Gods heavenly son (i.e. a “pre-existent celestial being”) etc., and where as Carrier points out; that was certainly the understanding which Philo had and which he set out in writing at an early date and probably before “Paul” had written or said anything about believing “the Christ” was a figure from scripture named “Jesus” (please see the fuller explanation of that, with quotes in my previous post, and of course please check for yourselves the explanation which Carrier himself gives in his book “OHJ“).

So, as I said before, and as Carrier is pointing out - that passage in Zechariah is one obvious place in “scripture” from which Paul might have even got the very name of “Jesus”, thinking that was the figure that was foretold to be the “christ” who was by divine prophecy certain to die and rise for the saving of all observant Jews.

 

[dejudge]

But the difficulty with this hypothesis consists in that the messiah invented was crucified by the Romans.

No!! No!!! No!!! You SCORE OUT 'the Jews' and put in other words.

Who are you trying to fool?? You invent your own story.

Your HJ argument is BANKRUPT. You have ZERO historical data for OBSCURE HJ.

Christians of antiquity specifically stated THEIR Jesus, the Son of God, was KILLED BY THE JEWS.



1. Lactantius "The way the Persecutors Died"---- I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.

2. Aristides' Apology -----The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven....... But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried.

3. Acts of the Apostles 2. 22-23 ----Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you....... ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain..

4. 1 Thessalonians 2 -----for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets

5. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho --- For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man....... you not only did not repent of the wickedness which you had committed..

6. Hippolytus "Treatise Against the Jews" -----7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? ..... it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

7. Origen's Celsus 1 ---they put to death Christ, who was a prophet.

8. Tertullian's Answer to Jews --- let the Jews recognise their own fate—a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him.

9. Chrysostom's Against the Jews 1---- They slew the Son of your Lord; do you have the boldness to enter with them under the same roof?

10. Against Heresies 4 --- the Jews had become the slayers of the Lord (which did, indeed, take eternal life away from them)


Christians of antiquity consistently claimed that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God and it was for that HEINOUS CRIME that the Temple of their God and Jerusalem was destroyed.

In fact, it was claimed by Christian writers that it was PREDICTED by Daniel that the Temple would fall AFTER the KILLING of the Son of God by the Jews.


Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.

For Daniel says, that both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.

The Jesus story and cult was INITIATED AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and simply backdated to SEVENTY years BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE using the so-called prophecy in Daniel 9.2.


Daniel 9:2

In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

 

[maximara]

I don't know. Does it? But let's say it does. On a forum called "international skeptics", what happens next? What would a skeptic do? Has it changed your mind at all? If so, in what way?

I've seen theory after theory being produced on these kinds of boards, produced by interested amateurs on the topic. Nearly all of them have some kind of evidence, or reasoning based on evidence, or claims of evidence. Few of them seem plausible once they are investigated in any depth. Yet few proponents appear to investigate them in any depth. The proponents just present the claim, and leave it at that. Are these the actions of a skeptic? Should a skeptic give provisional approval to a new theory that has had no investigation from the skeptic or third party? I would say no.

This is brought up because I've seen Jay Raskin propose a number of interesting theories on FRDB and BCF. A few posts are spent on them, then it is dropped and the next one proposed. And the burden of proof is always put on the other person, not the person proposing the theory.

That's not just a problem with Biblical Studies and the historical Jesus, but in any field where people want to dispute the mainstream. But skeptics should be different.

End of rant!

The problem here is the burden of proof should have been on those that presented this evidence for Jesus in the first place. This is where the theory driving the data issue Horace Minor satirized in 1956 comes into play.

Nearly all the evidence we are challenging was presented and accepted back when the theory was that the miracle making God-man was historical fact.

And to some degree that theory is still rattling around because if it wasn't no sane historian would be presenting Thallus as evidence. Thallus only serves to support the Gospel Jesus in the rational explanation for the supernatural goings on mold not any hypothetical ordinary man who is in the 1st to 2nd century equivalent of a Penny Dreadful or Dime Novel.

Then there is the fox guarding the hen house issue regarding the fact the Christians being the ones copying these documents. We know that they forged and tampered documents. We also know they had documents in their possession we do NOT have which would have helped determine the validity of the there actually being a HJ.

So WHY in the name of sanity do some of these scholars say that some part of Testimonium Flavianum is genuine? If there a current Piltdown Man in the whole HJ camp it is that thing. It like Thallus serves to prove the GOSPEL Jesus and with the current Jesus was a relative nobody that only handful of fanaticals noticed until he did something to piss off the local authorities then WHY would Josephus write what amounts to a commercial for the guy?!? Odds are Jesus would NOT have even been on Josephus radar if he had been that minor.

 

[dejudge]

Unless the Christian writers are wrong WHEN they say that Paul remained alive AFTER his head was cut off. I think THAT they are wrong, dejudge. But you believe IN the Infallibility of the hagiographic WRITINGS of the Fathers and Teachers of HOLY Mother Church.

You believe Acts of Paul is Biology and History

You believe they cut off Paul's head in a fiction story about the resurrection of Paul!!!


Your HJ argument is so bankrupt that you must SCORE OUT the resurrection of Paul to provide evidence that he was beheaded.

It should be obvious to you that Acts of the Apostles is total fiction.

If PAUL was actually beheaded then the story makes ZERO sense.

It would be completely IDIOTIC to tell people who had Paul's head in their hands that he is still Alive.

Acts of Paul is not only total fiction but also IDIOTIC to an extremely high level.

Paul's head is rolling on the ground but he was seen talking to the Emperor!!!

What stupidity!!!!What fiction!!!!

 

[IanS]

I don't know. Does it? But let's say it does. On a forum called "international skeptics", what happens next? What would a skeptic do? Has it changed your mind at all? If so, in what way?

I've seen theory after theory being produced on these kinds of boards, produced by interested amateurs on the topic. Nearly all of them have some kind of evidence, or reasoning based on evidence, or claims of evidence. Few of them seem plausible once they are investigated in any depth. Yet few proponents appear to investigate them in any depth. The proponents just present the claim, and leave it at that. Are these the actions of a skeptic? Should a skeptic give provisional approval to a new theory that has had no investigation from the skeptic or third party? I would say no.

This is brought up because I've seen Jay Raskin propose a number of interesting theories on FRDB and BCF. A few posts are spent on them, then it is dropped and the next one proposed. And the burden of proof is always put on the other person, not the person proposing the theory.

That's not just a problem with Biblical Studies and the historical Jesus, but in any field where people want to dispute the mainstream. But skeptics should be different.

End of rant!

I have not seen many such myth theories at all on this forum (ie what is here a huge long nest of threads lasting many years), or on Rational Scepticism (huge long thread lasting many years), or before that on the old Richard Dawkins forum "RDF" (an earlier huge long thread which spawned the vast thread on Rational Scepticism).

Instead what I have seen as by far the most dominant sceptic position, is simply that the evidence claimed for Jesus (which actually just boils down to the bible as the evidence), is nowhere near good enough to say anything much at all about Jesus, beyond saying that whilst of course he may have lived (because some people named Jesus presumably did live in Judea around 200 BC to 200 AD), there is actually no reliable or credible evidence of any such figure ever being known to any of the biblical writers, except in the sense of what they thought they "knew" from ancient superstitious legends of religious faith.

IOW - no specific myth theory. Just a case of total lack of any credible evidence for the claims (claims which were certainly being created from the OT anyway).

And just briefly on that issue of who is qualified to speak on this issue - almost the very last people who are qualified to judge what is reliable and credible as objective evidence in the biblical writing, are biblical studies lecturers and theologian writers who entered those professions specifically because of their pre-existing extreme faith and extreme interest in Jesus, God and the bible.

IOW - the issue here is one of objective "fact" - either Jesus did live, or else he did not, i.e. as a claimed fact. And the way that we decide in the 21st century what should or should not be regarded as likely "fact", is on the basis of what is credible and reliable as evidence of whatever is being claimed. And if you want an unbiased impartial academic expert view of what counts as evidence and what counts as genuinely objective analysis of any data offered as evidence, then you should be taking a scientific approach to that, and not an approach which claims that the "experts" are self-interested individuals who began such studies as highly devout Christians who already claimed to be utterly certain of the existence of Jesus and God, and where afaik the vast majority are probably still practicing Christians who's faith really forces them to believe in the divinity of Jesus.

 

[David Mo]

Readers other than Craig, should notice several things about that absolutely crucial passage -
1. Paul does not even mention any crucifixion there.
2. He says it was something he "received" ... and that this can only mean "received from God", because elsewhere he insists repeatedly that he learnt this "from no man", and "nor was I taught it by anyone", but instead "God was pleased to reveal his son in me".
3. He specifically says that "Christ died ... according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures". So he certainly did believe that the death that he (Paul) described for Jesus, was indeed written in the scriptures.
4. He does not, in fact, even mention the name Jesus! He just says that this was the "Christ" ... where the word "Christ" is simply a Greek translation of the much older Hebrew OT word "messiah", meaning anointed by God as a special leader or saviour of the Jewish people. It's not even necessarily any individual named Jesus!
But in any case, whatever anyone here thinks of my other comments in 1 to 4 above, the plain unarguable fact is that the passage in 1-Corinthians makes explicitly clear and quite unarguable that the writer "Paul" was very clearly saying that he obtained the idea of the death and resurrection of "Christ", i.e. a death which elsewhere he says was through crucifixion, was indeed obtained by him as his understanding of what had been written in the scriptures!

Very bad reading!

Point 1 is irrelevant. Paul speaks about the Christ crucified in other passages of 1 Corintians 1 and 2.

Point 2 is a bad interpretation. Paul says he has obtained “his Gospel” by revelation. It is very unlikely he had included in “my Gospel” the concrete series of the appearances of the Christ.

Point 3 is a bad English reading. To say that something has happened in the way it was predicted is not to say that my idea about this thing was caused by the prediction. Maybe I have noticed the prediction after my idea was formulated and I confirm my idea by the prediction after the fact has happened. Your conclusion was unfounded.

Point 4 is in contradiction with what you write bellow: ‘…probably before “Paul” had written or said anything about believing “the Christ” was a figure from scripture named “Jesus”’. Please, uses Paul the name of Jesus, yes or not?