Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Ethnikos]

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.

That's cool because that sort of thing gives me a headache for some reason. Maybe because of a been there done that attitude.
There is the story of the mother of James and John approaching Jesus to get the best positions in the kingdom. Calling him The Just may be a way of distancing him from that potentially embarrassing story, seeing how he did become the new king of the sect.

 

[Bill Thompson]

RandiFan, I think you choose to believe that Christ never existed as a matter principle and policy. Am I right?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Ohh ... I wish!

And it has "come to pass".

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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.

...and yet it seems that there are plenty of believers in those particular religions.

...no different from Christianity. This is why there was multiple Councils of Nicea...because there were people who realized the stories were untrue.

 

[Hokulele]

Only if you assume the phrase "Lord's brother" actually means "physical brother of Jesus". But Paul frequently uses the term "brother" in a non-literal way.

I can see why you interpret it that way, and why you want to, but in the context of the letter, it seems obvious to me that Paul is claiming a relationship with James, and between James and Jesus. Galatians is interesting because it is one of the epistles that almost all scholars agree is an authentic letter by Paul. In it, he goes into detail about his ties (and arguments!) with the church(es) in Jerusalem. James is not the only "founding father" to make an appearance in Galatians, but he is the only one referred to as "the Lord's brother". In other words, Paul is establishing his credentials, and claiming to know Jesus' brother is part of that.

I agree, Paul does use different meanings of adelphos throughout his writings, but when looking at context, I believe he is using the definition of brother as in blood relation in this case.

 

[Craig B]

Hokulele

I sympathise with your view. We have in addition this famous passage in Matthew 13:

53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.” 58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

This passage does little to exalt Jesus, unlike most of Matthew, with his absurd "prophecies" and the like. So one is tempted to suppose that Jesus really had a blood brother. This doesn't sit well with Matthew's birth story, although formal consistency therewith is sustained by the "until" in Matt 1: 25, which in its turn blows the "eternal virginity" of Mary to bits.

In short, there may be a historical reality of some sort behind all this.

 

[Hokulele]

...

This passage does little to exalt Jesus, unlike most of Matthew, with his absurd "prophecies" and the like. So one is tempted to suppose that Jesus really had a blood brother. This doesn't sit well with Matthew's birth story, although formal consistency therewith is sustained by the "until" in Matt 1: 25, which in its turn blows the "eternal virginity" of Mary to bits.

In short, there may be a historical reality of some sort behind all this.

Yep. I am of the opinion that there was a person around whom the myths accumulated, most likely a disciple of John the Baptist, and the inconsistencies in the story are what I find compelling. Please note, this is not a claim that the imperfections of the characters are evidence of historicity, but the imperfections of the narrative itself.

Poor Matthew, striving to find a prophecy, any prophecy, from the Old Testament to match his hero, done in by poor reading comprehension and the occasional harsh (probable) fact.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas


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: The threat in that last verse Is undisguised. Then a humiliating loyalty test: And now comes a restatement of the Noahide laws, which Paul disdains. James Is really rubbing it in.

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.

I agree.....

I do find the Peter conversion interesting if it was in fact true. The fact that Peter was sent away to the North to preach was also an indicator that he joined Paul's movement.

 

[Craig B]

Hokulele

Please note, this is not a claim that the imperfections of the characters are evidence of historicity, but the imperfections of the narrative itself. Poor Matthew, striving to find a prophecy, any prophecy, from the Old Testament to match his hero, done in by poor reading comprehension and the occasional harsh (probable) fact.

Yes, virgins for young women on account of mistranslation, and duplication of donkeys because of unfamiliarity with Hebrew poetic parallelism, to name but two absurdities.

However, imperfections of character may be as strong, or (this is my view) even stronger, evidence of historicity than imperfections of narrative. We are all acquainted with imperfect, or even lamentable, descriptions of events whose authenticity is unchallengeable.

But take Mark 3, for example, where we have "imperfections of character" in its depiction of Jesus.

20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” ... 31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” 33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

My poor old grey-haired mother would have tanned my arse for that! But this "mad", family-rejecting Jesus looks more real (and to add to the impression of authenticity the "brothers" put in an appearance) than, say, the entity described in John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

And these relative impressions of authenticity have nothing to do with the quality of the narrative, or so it seems to me.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I have an idea and I post it then I go back and read what people have said about my ideas.

And then you completely ignore what people have said about your ideas and just repeat your false claims over and over. Boring.

Like your nonsense about the JM theory being a "conspiracy", or some secret meeting or committee.
Wrong. The JM theory has NOTHING to do with a conspiracy.
But you simply ignore that when it's pointed out.

Like your nonsense about all those people who met Jesus.
Wrong. No-one ever met Jesus.
But you simply ignore that when it's pointed out.

Like your nonsense about Peter being buried in the Vatican
Wrong. It's a pile of rubbish and bones.
But you simply ignore that when it's pointed out.

Like your nonsense about the Gospels having identical stories about Jesus.
Wrong. I pointed out many differences and contradictions.
But you simply ignored that.


You simply ignore anything you disagree with.
Please stop doing that.


K.

 

[Hokulele]

But take Mark 3, for example, where we have "imperfections of character" in its depiction of Jesus.


My poor old grey-haired mother would have tanned my arse for that! But this "mad", family-rejecting Jesus looks more real (and to add to the impression of authenticity the "brothers" put in an appearance) than, say, the entity described in John 1: And these relative impressions of authenticity have nothing to do with the quality of the narrative, or so it seems to me.

Well, I am not entirely convinced, as that passage seems to support Mark's pre-apocalyptic vision of Jesus nicely, rather than being an inconvenient truth. But be that as it may, I generally agree with you.

 

[Craig B]

Hokulele

"seems to support Mark's pre-apocalyptic vision"

I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.

 

[Hokulele]

I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.

Yeah, given the consistent fail rate of the apocalypse over the last couple of millenia, it is easy to forget just what a central concept it was to early Christianity.

 

[Craig B]

Hokulele

Well, I am not entirely convinced, as that passage seems to support Mark's pre-apocalyptic vision of Jesus nicely, rather than being an inconvenient truth. ... Yeah, given the consistent fail rate of the apocalypse over the last couple of millenia, it is easy to forget just what a central concept it was to early Christianity.

Suppose, as is frequently proposed, Jesus was, as a matter of fact, a messianic apocalypticist. Then the earliest sources would tend to depict him in this way, or themselves be apocalyptic, and they do or are: Paul, bits of Q, and Mark, can be interpreted in such a light. But this early apocalyptic Jesus would be the real one, and the later more relaxed Jesus would be the result of later authors downplaying the immediate apocalyptic element, because nothing out of the natural course of things had happened over the increasing number of decades which by then had elapsed since Jesus' death. (Now, millennia.) Then Mark's pre-apocalypticism would be an indication of authenticity.

Or am I stretching things a bit?

At all events: Jesus having brothers who think he's nuts, whether true or not, is most certainly "inconvenient" from the point of view of received Christian soteriology.

 

[Hokulele]

Suppose, as is frequently proposed, Jesus was, as a matter of fact, a messianic apocalypticist. Then the earliest sources would tend to depict him in this way, or themselves be apocalyptic, and they do or are: Paul, bits of Q, and Mark, can be interpreted in such a light. But this early apocalyptic Jesus would be the real one, and the later more relaxed Jesus would be the result of later authors downplaying the immediate apocalyptic element, because nothing out of the natural course of things had happened over the increasing number of decades which by then had elapsed since Jesus' death. (Now, millennia.) Then Mark's pre-apocalypticism would be an indication of authenticity.

Or am I stretching things a bit?

That would depend on what you mean by authenticity. It does help put a date on the authorship (as do clues such as the Temple prophecy), but it says nothing as to whether or not it was written by someone who actually knew an historical Jesus.

At all events: Jesus having brothers who think he's nuts, whether true or not, is most certainly "inconvenient" from the point of view of received Christian soteriology.

Having a brother myself, it would be more inconvenient if the Jesus' brothers didn't think he was nuts!

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

One of the claims in support of an HJ is that the NT writers had met Jesus, or at least met people who HAD met Jesus.

In fact, Paul and the early NT writers show just the OPPOSITE -
They clearly indicate that their source for Jesus' story is from revelation, and from scripture :

Firstly, some general comments from the early NT -

2 Cor 1:22 NEB
"It is all God's doing, God has set his seal on us by sending the Spirit".

1 Cor. 14:36-37
"Did the word of God originate with you? Are you the only people to whom it came? If anyone claims to be inspired or a prophet, let him recognize that that I write has the Lord's authority"

1 Peter 1:12 :
"Preachers brought you the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven."

The source of their gospel, their teaching, is the Spirit - is internal personal revelation.


More specifially, how did Paul know about Jesus -

Gal. 1:16
"God chose to reveal his Son in me, in order that I might preach him among the gentiles"

Jesus was revealed to Paul, IN Paul, by revelation.
Not from any historical tradition.

Rom. 16:25-6
Paul's Gospel
"about Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept in silence for long ages but now revealed, and made known through prophetic writings".

Until NOW it was secret, but Paul now has knowledge about Jesus - derived from his revelation about what the scriptures mean.
Not from any historical tradition.


Eph 3:5
"The mystery about Christ which in former generations was not made known to the human race, is now revealed to dedicated apostles and prophets through the Spirit."

Knowledge about Jesus Christ is only NOW known by revelation.
Not from any historical tradition.


Gal. 1:11-12
"For I neither received (paralambanoo) [my Gospel about Jesus Christ] from man, nor was I taught it, but [I recieved it] through a revelation of Jesus Christ"

He received his gospel about Jesus from personal revelation - specifically saying that he did NOT learn it, and got it from NO MAN.
Not from any historical tradition.
(Note: Paul uses 'paralambano' to refer to receiving revelation.)


1 Cor. 15:3-4
"For I delivered to you ... what I also received (paralambano), that Christ died for our sins, as learned from the scriptures, and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day, as learned from the scriptures"
(Translating "kata tas graphas" to "as learned from the scriptures".)

Paul has received this knowledge about Jesus dieing and rising again from HIS personal REVELATION about what the scriptures really mean, probably referring to Isaiah 53, Hosea 6:2, Ps. 22:16, Zech. 12:10 and Ps. 2.
Not from any historical tradition.


1 Cor. 11:23-26
"For I received (paralambano) from the Lord that which I passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was delivered up, took bread, and when he had given thanks, broke it and said: 'This is my body..."

Paul's received this knowledge about Jesus' Last Supper by personal revelation.
Not from any historical tradition.


Hebrews
1:2 "In this final age God has spoken to us through his Son" in the present.
But all quotes of the Son are from scripture, not a single Gospel saying - e.g. Ps. 2:12 "I will proclaim thy name to my brothers", not Mark 3:35 as example of being brothers. Quotes of OT scripture are put in Jesus' mouth with "he says...", in the present tense - e.g. 10:5-7 Christ speaks about himself by quoting Ps. 40:5-8. 5:7 derived from Ps. 116:1 and Ps. 22:24.
Scripture is consistently the source for Jesus' words and actions to this writer.

Rev.
Opens with the "revelation of Jesus Christ" - God reveals it to Jesus, who passes it to an angel who tells John. Filled with revelation about Jesus. 1:7 is derived from Zech. 12:10 Closes with quote from Habakkuk in the mouth of Jesus. Nothing historical there.

1 Clement
16:15-16 describing Jesus' suffering - quoting Ps. 22 and Isaiah 53, no Gospel stories. Ch. 22 - Ps. 34 is quoted as a direct summons from Jesus. Scripture is a source for Jesus' actions for this writer too.

Polycarp's epistle
8:1 talking of the events around Jesus - he quotes from Isaiah 53.
2:3a speaks of "the Lord in his teaching", then quotes from 1 Clement 13.
No clear knowledge of Jesus stories, except from scriptures.

Barnabas
Talks about Jesus' passion 5:2, 5:12, 13 ; but his sources are scripture - Isaiah 50 and 53 and Psalms 22 and 119.

Tertullian,
On the Flesh of Christ, Ch. 9
"As the case stood, however, it was actually the ordinary condition of His terrene flesh which made all things else about Him wonderful, as when they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works?" Thus spake even they who despised His outward form. His body did not reach even to human beauty, to say nothing of heavenly glory. Had the prophets given us no information whatever concerning His ignoble appearance, His very sufferings and the very contumely He endured bespeak it all. "

That is -
even if the prophets [i.e. scriptures] had not told us he was physically ugly, we could still tell that was so from his sufferings. Meaning that Tertullian's source for Jesus' appearance is the scriptures (the prophets.)

Again in Against Marcion 3, 17 :
Let us compare with Scripture the rest of His dispensation. Whatever that poor despised body may be, because it was an object of touch and sight, it shall be my Christ, be He inglorious, be He ignoble, be He dishonoured; for such was it announced that He should be, both in bodily condition and aspect. Isaiah comes to our help again:
"We have announced (His way) before Him," says he; "He is like a servant, like a root in a dry ground; He hath no form nor comeliness; we saw Him, and He had neither form nor beauty; but His form was despised, marred above all men." Similarly the Father addressed the Son just before: "Inasmuch as many will be astonished at Thee, so also will Thy beauty be without glory from men,"
So Isaiah is the source of his details about Jesus.


Origen vs Celsus.
They argue about the characteristics of Jesus - as derived from Isaiah and Psalm 45 (contra Celsum VI, 75)


In summary - many Christians' writings make it clear that their source for Jesus' story is SCRIPTURE and/or personal revelation - not from any historical tradition from anyone who ever met Jesus

There is NO evidence that any NT writer is writing from personal experience of a historical Jesus - they all look to scripture and revelation.

The Gospels too - G.Mark was first, and his Jesus is clearly based on scriptures. The other 2 copy G.Mark, and G.John tells a wildly different story. It's all about scripture, this is religious literature if you will.

But none of it goes back to any historical Jesus, or any personal meetings with Jesus. There WAS no Jesus.


Kapyong
(Thanks to Earl Doherty for much of this list.)

 

[RandFan]

RandiFan, I think you choose to believe that Christ never existed as a matter principle and policy. Am I right?

I believe that it is likely that a person who was named Jesus or was a messianic figure who was latter named Jesus and was from Nazareth probably lived. I think that is the best reason to make up the obviously silly lies about the trip to Bethlehem (there are other explanations for the lies though). But that's just a personal opinion based on the preponderance of evidence and very tentative evidence at that. No hard evidence exists. Period. If asked to demonstrate that Jesus the Christ (*anointed one) lived beyond a reasonable doubt I couldn't do that. People like you who declare that Jesus must have lived are deluded and must rely on all kinds of silly appeals to CT claims and such.

*It's rather presumptuous for anyone to refer to Jesus as "The anointed one". It would be like you and I refering to Mohammad as God's Prophet (do you believe God's Prophet lived?). Let's stick to Jesus. That was his name. If you want to believe otherwise that's fine but I don't have to take part in the make believe.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

*It's rather presumptuous for anyone to refer to Jesus as "The anointed one".

I've heard some Greek speakers would hear that as :
Christ = "The Oiled One"
Christians = "The Oilies"
Jesus Christ = "Jesus, the Oily"


K.

 

[RandFan]

Gday,



I've heard some Greek speakers would hear that as :
Christ = "The Oiled One"
Christians = "The Oilies"
Jesus Christ = "Jesus, the Oily"


K.

 

[Craig B]

Randfan

and was from Nazareth

But there's even a problem about that. It seems to derive from one of Matthew's "prophecies": Matt 2:23 "He shall be called a Nazarene" but there is no such verse in the scriptures as we now have them; Nazareth isn't named in the OT, or in Josephus, so it may not have existed in the 1st century, and Jesus' family is related by Matthew to have lived in Capernaum. The word "Nazarene" may not have meant inhabitant of Nazareth. It may have been in reality "Nazirite", which appears 17 times in the OT. See http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Nazirite&qs_version=NIV for its occurrences and description.