Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Bart Ehrman does not worship Jesus and is an admitted agnostic. Has it hurt his career? Paula Fredriksen doesn't believe in god, yet she was picked by PBS to be an advisor on the series "From Jesus to Christ". Bad move career-wise? John Dominic Crossan left the priesthood in 1969 and doesn't think Jesus had superpowers or was god made man. Did this hurt his career? If you read or view interviews with Elaine Pagels, you can see she doesn't really believe the creeds of mainstream Christianity. Is she just following the status quo? Do these people not jump on the MJ bus because they are afraid of the repercussions or is it because their work and examination of the evidence has led them to a different conclusion?

Some good examples there, thanks for the time you spent.

But - Bart slowly becoming agnostic about FAITH is a far cry from announcing Jesus never existed. I am sure his agnosticism cost him some speaking engagements at least.

Fredriksen converted from Christianity to Judaism, and still thinks Jesus existed.

Crossan - leaving the priesthood happens a lot - but that's a long way from announcing Jesus never existed.

Pagels is indeed a bit of a maverick - her Gnostic Paul was great. But she still doesn't claim Jesus never existed.

Consider G.A. Wells - he almost claimed Jesus didn't exist, but draw back from that claim - partly in response to the flack he suffered, surely?

The only mainstream NT scholar who does currently is Price AFAIK - and he is getting a lot of abuse.

Doherty is dismissed as not really a scholar - but he is getting rudely abused for his claims.

JMicism is the 3rd rail of history - no-one will touch it. Even if Pagels, Ehrman, Crossan or Fredriksen did start to wonder about Jesus' historicity, there is enormous consequences of arguing so - not least because they would have to admit being wrong all their careers - who would do that?

Look at it another way :
How many Hindu scholars argue Krishna didn't exist?
How many Buddhist scholars argue Buddha didn't exist?
None.

I think that pressure or bias is obvious, although I may have overstated its strength.

How would YOU rate the strength of that pressure?
Certainly not zero?


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Looking at this from a different perspective, some Jews have argued for a historical Jesus throughout the years even though the opposite was the entrenched position. (In 1925, Rabbi Stephen Wise gave a lecture at Carnegie Hall entitled “A Jew's View of Jesus". He argued against the predominant Jewish view at that time (Jesus did not exist).

Hmmm,
that's interesting - can you perhaps give me some details to follow up there? Can you cite a few Jewish authors who argued Jesus didn't exist?

My notes include (for early 20th century) :

• M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
• Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
• John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
• Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus – A Myth
• Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
• L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
• Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
• P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ

K.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Gday,


*snip*

Make sense?


K.

I'm afraid not. How do you consolidate all that with a rational approach?
- You need not answer, especially not here, but it might make a great subject for another thread, if you will bear with the inevitable flak.

Hans

 

[Belz...]

Gday,



Christianity had a founder - Paul, inter alia.

Did Zeus found the Greek religion?
Did Demeter found her mysteries?
Did Bacchus found the revelries?
Did Krishna found Hinduism?
Did Xenu found Scientology ?

No.

Jesus was not the founder.
Jesus is not required at all.


K.

I don't think you can compare those with Jesus, though.

None of them were ever said to be mortals like Jeebus was before he was retconned.

 

[Kapyong]

Well,
in short - I don't 'consolidate' them.

I keep those experiences compartmentalised, completely separate, with no connection the rational normal world. I have to.

The only message for the rational world is :
people can have unusual 'spiritual' experiences, they are very real to them, whatever they may actually be.

But I don't argue anything specific from my experiences.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I don't think you can compare those with Jesus, though.
None of them were ever said to be mortals like Jeebus was before he was retconned.

Well, actually - Paul's version of Jesus was not mortal. He talks about a Risen Christ who is some sort of higher being - one that is mentioned in the scriptures, but in a secret way that only HE (Paul) is first to realise. He makes it clear he learned of Jesus "from no man", but by revelation and scriptures.

And what about the Docetics? (the Seemers, or the Illusionists)
They believed in a phantom Jesus -

e.g.
Marcion, in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :
“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”

Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :
"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: "

(I stripped off the sources, can dig them up if needed.)


A Phantom Jesus !
I reckon that's worth a movie, for sure !
Invisible Man meets The Passion of Christ



K.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well,
in short - I don't 'consolidate' them.

I keep those experiences compartmentalised, completely separate, with no connection the rational normal world. I have to.

The only message for the rational world is :
people can have unusual 'spiritual' experiences, they are very real to them, whatever they may actually be.

But I don't argue anything specific from my experiences.


K.

Fair enough. I have had 'spiritual' evidences (albeit much less spectacular) myself, in fact most people probably have. Mine were such that I can easily consolidate them into a rational world (as imaginary), but I can understand if that is harder for you. However, thanks for sharing, I think it is very interesting.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

A Phantom Jesus !
I reckon that's worth a movie, for sure !
Invisible Man meets The Passion of Christ



K.

The costume department will have an easy job!

Hans

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It was a JOKE....you see Jesus says to beware of false prophets. I say that is Jesus foretelling Paul. So that implies that Paul is a false prophet.....you see since Paul made christianity something that Jesus would not have approved of. Even Peter and James and the other disciples thought Paul was wrong. Peter later changed his mind.


So you see I am making a JOKE that Jesus mentioned Paul as the false prophet..... get it?

I cannot say that I ever really agreed with these kind of anti-Paul sentiments, but be that as it may.

It was your joke, however, and not Catscratch's, right? I am asking, or maybe just thinking out loud, as I haven't read each and every post in this thread.

 

[Leumas]

I cannot say that I ever really agreed with these kind of anti-Paul sentiments, but be that as it may.

It was your joke, however, and not Catscratch's, right? I am asking, or maybe just thinking out loud, as I haven't read each and every post in this thread.

It is my joke.

Regarding the Anti Paul sentiments....they are not mine....they are James' and Peter's (initially).

Read Acts and 1 Galatians..... carefully..... they tell the story of the FIGHT between Paul and James and how Peter CONVERTED to Paul's side.

Also of course you can read James to see how he totally calls Paul a LIAR (of course subtly without names).

1 Galatians is Paul's story of the fight between him and James.

Acts is telling the story from (I think) Peter's point of view.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It is my joke.

Ah, ok. I did not get that as first. You see, the statement "Yes he did....here are the verses" can be read two different ways. One is "Yes, [Jesus] did [prophesy about Paul] ..." and the other is "Yes, [Catscratch] did [give these verses] ...". And I think I chose the wrong one.

 

[Ethnikos]

It is my joke.
*snip*

I don't know if joke is the right word but I recognized it was a poke at someone to get a reaction, the problem is that the intended respondents have left the building.

 

[Craig B]

Leumas

Acts is telling the story from (I think) Peter's point of view.

More likely, from the point of view of a Paulinist vainly striving to minimise the hostility between Paul and the Jerusalem Church. But even in Acts it comes through. Here's James talking to Paul in Acts 21:

20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

The threat in that last verse Is undisguised. Then a humiliating loyalty test:

23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them. 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

And now comes a restatement of the Noahide laws, which Paul disdains. James Is really rubbing it in.

25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

None of this is Petrine, if indeed Peter was the vacillating figure Acts makes him out to be. It is all rigidly orthodox Jamesian legalism. Here is Yaqub Zaddik in all his power, and Acts can barely find a way to disguise it.

 

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
Here is Yaqub Zaddik in all his power, and Acts can barely find a way to disguise it.

Are you suggesting James was a Zaddikite?

 

[Craig B]

Ethnikos

More generally, Zadik merely means " the Just One", a title often given to James in ancient sources. See e.g. http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/chapter12jwo.html

Numerous ancient sources outside the DSS identify James the Just (the brother of Jesus) as The Zaddik. Translated, this means Just One. Jerome by the 400s will call him James the Just. In Christian writings of that era, the name of James was rarely used. He was merely called the Zaddik or Just One.

It implies strict adherence to the Law, in fact vigorously displayed by James in Acts.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Gday,



Sadly, Bill has NO IDEA what the MJ theory is about, and he won't read posts, and he refuses to learn. Oh well.

To be honest, I have nothing to gain either way about the debate in this thread. I have an idea and I post it then I go back and read what people have said about my ideas.

Are you saying that there is a theory that Michael Jackson did not exist?

Heeeeeere's Johnny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

It is commonly believed that the Vanuatu cargo cult began during WW2 and that its central figure was based on a US soldier. That's not true. It actually dates to the 1930s. Some oral traditions say that John Frum was a man to begin with, some say he was a vision that was later reified in folklore as a man who lived. The latter is exactly what Christ Myth theorists propose about Jesus.

And I don't know how to make the concept any plainer to you than that.

and world war 2 happned soooo long ago, right? It only took a few decades to blow the lid off of that. How many people would serve to gain from John's myth? The entire Jewish society would have somethig to gain from proving that Jesus was a myth.

Oh, And I cam bold too. Your use of it does not magically make your point correct or valid.

 

[Bill Thompson]

We are skeptics. We expose frauds. Uri Geller. Sylvia Browne. Scientology. Mormonism. New Age, Psychics, etc.. We are equal oportunity BS exposers.

Joseph Smith started Mormonism. Mary Baker Eddie started ChristianScience. L. Ron Hubbard strted Scientology

Yep, and they, like Christianity are frauds.

BTW: Duh. So let's fill our ignorance with talking snakes, talking donkeys, witches, etc because we can't prove them either. Just think, some day Harry Potter will be real because it will be to hard to prove he existed. Good one Bill.

But this seems different to me. This one seems centered on a desire for it to be true (or untrue). Smith and Hubbard have been exposed by their own people in a matter of a few years. Christianity does not seem to be like that.

Plus, it also seems to me that what you are saying is that your position is what it is because it is more ethical rather than being purely based on logic.

 

[Craig B]

Smith and Hubbard have been exposed by their own people in a matter of a few years.

Ohh ... I wish!

 

[Ethnikos]

Ethnikos

More generally, Zadik merely means " the Just One", a title often given to James in ancient sources. See e.g. http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/chapter12jwo.html It implies strict adherence to the Law, in fact vigorously displayed by James in Acts.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering because this theory about the people of the DSS came up here, earlier and I was wondering if you subscribed to any of those theories.
I tried for a long time, 25 years ago to get the various James' sorted out and I don't think it is possible to do with much certainty.
It's all fuzzy and I believe deliberately so. The alternative is that the compilers, or whoever, gave up themselves because of the massive amount of variations to the stories.

 

[Craig B]

Ethnikos

No, I tend not to subscribe to theories to the effect that there are direct references to Jesus, James, Paul etc in the DSS, if that's what you are referring to.