Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
I see what you're doing. You can no longer deny that Paul thought Jesus had a human life, so now you're asking for verses were Paul states that Jesus was just human. Nice subtle shift.
Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Ricardo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus jesus
- Status
I see what you're doing. You can no longer deny that Paul thought Jesus had a human life, so now you're asking for verses were Paul states that Jesus was just human. Nice subtle shift.
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
Why is that an argument? I never claimed he was.
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
But here's Paul quoting a tradition that implies Jesus was a ordinary man who was resurrected by God and was adopted as his son.
Romans 1:3-4 - regarding his Son, who according to the flesh was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 1:3-4 - regarding his Son, who according to the flesh was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
If you quote him the passage about Jesus handing around bread and wine to his followers, the only response you are likely to get is being ignored.
Because apparently passing around food and drink to humans is what celestial beings created from a heavenly sperm bank in outer space do...
And all of that supposedly makes more sense than the usual human tendency to exaggerate stories about important people.
I don't think I have ever said that you claimed Paul had met a human Jesus. Please quote where I ever said that you had made that claim?
If you cannot quote me saying that, then you need to remove the very silly and completely untrue slur of "dishonesty".
We have been through the above before, and just right here on the last few pages -
- many biblical scholars (who are themselves practicing Christians) now apparently accept that David was probably only ever an invented fictional figure of ancient Jewish religious mythology. So you cannot have a non-existent David as the "seed" for a family line leading to Jesus!
But even apart from that - it's crystal clear in Paul's letters that he believed that Jesus was the Son of a heavenly supernatural God Yahweh (also known as "YHWH"), and that could not possibly be a description of an ordinary human preaching on the Earth.
Paul also based his entire gospel on a belief in "Christ Risen". He actually tells other church leaders (probably the "Pillars", but we can check) that "if Christ is not risen then our faith is in vain" (roughly from memory) ... IOW he is saying it is a certain fact that Jesus rose from the dead ...but that is NOT the behaviour of an ordinary earthly human person!
And finally, although Paul may well have imagined that Jesus was once upon the Earth as a supernatural scion of God, where he apparently would take-on human-like appearance, Paul is super-clear in stressing that he had never himself known any such person as Jesus, but that instead he got that belief entirely from what he mistakenly thought was a divine revelation from God that revealed to him the true meaning of ancient scriptural messiah prophecy ... IOW, what he believed about Jesus was obtained entirely through religious divine faith, and not from any connection at all to, or any knowledge of, any human form of Jesus ...
... in which respect please note what I said earlier at least 5 or 6 times already here, namely that Paul is also super-clear in stressing that what he believed about Jesus "came from no Man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone"... so he says there in undeniable terms that he got no such beliefs from any so-called "brother James" or from anyone else ... instead he got it entirely through his imaginary divine revelation where he says "God was pleased toe reveal his Son in me!".
Do you really want me to waste even more of my time going through your other equally erroneous claims about Paul knowing that Jesus was a human man, because frankly I don't think that's worthy of my time or anyone else's time going through that with you for the N-th time.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
The irony of this thread is intense. As far as I know, we have only atheists here. Yet here we are squabbling amongst ourselves about an imaginary being that none of us believe in anyway.
While we all waste time quibbling about the finer detail of historical accuracy, the god botherers are busy changing the laws of our various countries to make them more religious.
And you all care not a whit. It doesn't matter that any of us end up under the jackboot of religion, it is more important to get all upset about whether or not some bastard carpenter ever existed or not. Me, I am certain that bastard carpenters have existed since carpentry. Seems rather mundane.
And while all this vexatious debate about the simple claim that "there was some bloke" continues, all of our rights are being eroded by the religious. This thread simply provides the god cranks with ammunition.
While we all waste time quibbling about the finer detail of historical accuracy, the god botherers are busy changing the laws of our various countries to make them more religious.
And you all care not a whit. It doesn't matter that any of us end up under the jackboot of religion, it is more important to get all upset about whether or not some bastard carpenter ever existed or not. Me, I am certain that bastard carpenters have existed since carpentry. Seems rather mundane.
And while all this vexatious debate about the simple claim that "there was some bloke" continues, all of our rights are being eroded by the religious. This thread simply provides the god cranks with ammunition.
No. We all agree that the Roman Emperors existed ...because there is a vast mass of real tangible evidence for them (museums all around the world are stuffed with it).
And no doubt there were "Christian sects" who "thought Jesus was only human", but what people "thought", ie what they merely believed, is absolutely NOT evidence that their religious beliefs were actually true. ... religious beliefs, ie religious faith, is not evidence of reality.
You omitted the preceding sentence which tells you immediately that Paul was preaching that as something that he had found (or believed he had found) as a divine prophecy in ancient "scripture". Here is the whole paragraph -
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1-3&version=NIV
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
That is a prophecy about a human being who is supposedly descended from an ancient king (also believed to be a real human being by the people telling the story). Paul says Jesus became "Son of God" after he died, not before.
Exactly how that adds up to Paul thinking that Jesus lived somewhere in the sky is beyond me.
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
Yes because they were leaders of an Empire, unlike Jesus who would have been a backwoods peasant. We have to work with the evidence we got.
Last edited:
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
Didn't I already tell you that's irrelevant. Paul thought David was a historical person and a human so saying someone was the "seed of David" meant he was human to him. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
I really want to understand this. Can I ask: why does not having someone in history claiming to have met a human Jesus impact the case for the historicity of Jesus? And how much does it impact that case, in your opinion?
(The claim "Jesus figures were a dime a dozen in those days" is based on the assumption of the existence of figures for whom we have the same or less evidence, and certainly no-one claiming to have met those figures. Depending on where you want to draw the line, it's true of pretty much everyone in ancient history. All texts are copies of copies of copies.)
Also: can you clarify what you mean by "human Jesus"? I think getting a common understanding of the terminology is required to have a good conversation. When people on this thread talk about a "supernatural Jesus", I'm never sure whether they mean a human Jesus with supernatural powers, or a human Jesus who ascended to heaven after death, or God Incarnate.
Thanks.
Last edited:
Please, please!!! Ordinary human beings do not resurrect!!
The Pauline Jesus was the Son of God made of a woman - A God/man - a supernatural being.
Did you just say God adopted Jesus as his son after he was raised from the dead?
When did that happen?
What God??
What son??
What adoption???
What resurrection??
What fiction!!!
The Pauline writings are non-historical garbage fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century.
You don't understand the teachings of the Church with regards to the Epistles.
The so-called Pauline Epistle are part of the Canon and promote the teachings of the Church that their Lord Jesus was the Son of God made of a woman.
Galatians 4:4
You will never find a human father for Jesus in the Christian Bible - only God or a Ghost.
Not true.
The so-called Pauline writings state Jesus is God's son made of a woman and that he was the Creator of heaven and earth.
The Pauline Jesus was the Son of God before birth, the Creator of all things.
The Pauline God SENT his Son before the resurrection in the fables of the Pauline Epistles.
Galatians 4:4
Colossians 1
The Pauline Jesus was a supernatural God/man/Creator.
Last edited:
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
I've never understood why it keeps coming back to the idea that "we don't have evidence from anyone who actually met Jesus". Of course, it would be best if we did. But once it is acknowledged that we don't, we can then go on and look at the rest of the data. Is there enough data to make inferences from that? I'd say 'yes', but it is an argument we can have. It simply seems irrational (if you'll forgive the use of the word on this board, but it IS irrational) to return to that point when the argument has moved on to inferences from other data.
Whenever someone tries to bring a halt to the discussion with "we have no credible evidence that anyone actually met Jesus", I think of this:
"Notably odd". Yes, indeed. The above is from Rational Wiki discussing Creationism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_do_you_know?_Were_you_there?
"The interplay between direct and indirect forms of evidence" is what we are discussing here. I don't understand why, for some people, the HJ/MJ discussion keeps getting pulled back to direct first-hand accounts. I can understand why Creationists do it. I can't understand why some mythicists do it. I'd like to understand.
Whenever someone tries to bring a halt to the discussion with "we have no credible evidence that anyone actually met Jesus", I think of this:
The presumption of "How do you know? Were you there?" seems to be that only first-hand, eyewitness testimony is reliable — and so it is illegitimate to make inferences about things beyond our immediate observations. Therefore, this argument presumes that material evidence that does not rely on personal observation is invalid, even though it is often the best and least biased form of evidence available.
When considering historical evidence, first-hand accounts (primary sources) are generally taken as better evidence than second or third-hand accounts and those written down long after the fact (secondary sources). However, this is a mere guideline and the first-hand accounts can often be subject to greater bias, as even eyewitnesses can lie, remember incorrectly, exaggerate or simply view events through their own political or social twist. This is why gathering evidence about the past is an exercise in the interplay between direct and indirect forms of evidence...
This assumption the only first-hand (primary) accounts are valid is notably odd given our attitudes to personal accounts in other areas of life.
When considering historical evidence, first-hand accounts (primary sources) are generally taken as better evidence than second or third-hand accounts and those written down long after the fact (secondary sources). However, this is a mere guideline and the first-hand accounts can often be subject to greater bias, as even eyewitnesses can lie, remember incorrectly, exaggerate or simply view events through their own political or social twist. This is why gathering evidence about the past is an exercise in the interplay between direct and indirect forms of evidence...
This assumption the only first-hand (primary) accounts are valid is notably odd given our attitudes to personal accounts in other areas of life.
"Notably odd". Yes, indeed. The above is from Rational Wiki discussing Creationism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_do_you_know?_Were_you_there?
"The interplay between direct and indirect forms of evidence" is what we are discussing here. I don't understand why, for some people, the HJ/MJ discussion keeps getting pulled back to direct first-hand accounts. I can understand why Creationists do it. I can't understand why some mythicists do it. I'd like to understand.
Last edited:
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
They can be by a divine power (according to theology). You know that Jewish apocalypticists believed that in the end times, God would raise people from the dead?
Are you one of them Jewish apocalypticists??
May I remind you that there is no such thing as God and nobody is going to be raised from the dead at any time.
The resurrected Bible Jesus, the son of the Ghost was a total fictitious character - never ever existed.
Downplaying the necessity for first hand historical accounts defeats the HJ argument.
It is claimed by some HJers that their Jesus of Nazareth was really a scarcely known wandering preacher but that later people made up stuff about him.
Such an HJ argument clearly shows the need for first hand accounts for an HJ since virtually all stories about him by second, third and other hands appear to be total fiction.
It is virtually impossible to determine that there was an HJ using the NT and apologetic accounts for Jesus of Nazareth without credible first hand historical accounts.
- Status