HghrSymmetry
View clearer from above.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 19,345
The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
WHAT HJ Scholar (as opposed to apologist) actually says this?
Carrier is getting his terms from Rudolf Bultmann who wikipedia describes as "a German Lutheran theologian and professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg. He was one of the major figures of early 20th century biblical studies and a prominent voice in liberal Christianity."
Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall uses that amounts to the Reductive and Triumphalist terms when describing the two ends of the historical Jesus spectrum:
"In our introductory chapter we established two ways in which the phrase ' the historical Jesus could be used"
"The first was express the belief that the person called Jesus really exist, as opposed to the possibility that there was no such person. To speak of the historical jesus is to say 'Jesus is a historical character like Julius Agricola or Henry VIII' and to deny the statement 'Jesus is a fictitious character like King Lear or Dr Who'"
"The second way of using the phrase was to express the belief what the account given of Jesus in a particular book corresponds with what actually happened. To speak of the historical Jesus this time is to say: 'The description of Jesus in the Gospels corresponds to what he was actually like.'"
Here is his wikipedia entry:
"Ian Howard Marshall (born 12 January 1934)[1] is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. He was formerly the chair of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological Research; he was also president of the British New Testament Society and chair of the Fellowship of European Evangelical Theologians."
If neither Rudolf Bultmann or Ian Howard Marshall is not "HJ Scholar (of some import)" then who the sam hill is?!?
'I have created that I call the Remsburg-Bultmann-Marshall-Carrier definition as it merges all of them together:
Reductive theory (Remsburg's Jesus of Nazareth): "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him" rather than being a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who
Triumphalist theory (Remsberg's Jesus of Bethlehem): "The Gospels are totally or almost totally true" rather than being works of imagination like those of King Arthur.
Any HJ Scholar who is "of some import" would know this. They may not use the exact terms 'Reductive' and 'Triumphalist' but as Bultmann and Marshall prove they certainly know the concepts.
Actually per Ian Howard Marshall it CAN be essential for a HJ if one is going for 'the description of Jesus in the Gospels corresponds to what he was actually like.' (ie Triumphalist) side of the HJ spectrum.
Please note Eddy-Boyd in Jesus Legend Baker Academic are doing exactly this route in the well used natural explanation of the supernatural events methodology vein. So the supernatural events are either written off as hallucinations or fabrications (ie the the zombie jamboree at the end of one of the Gospels) or given natural explanations (the three hours of darkness was an ash cloud--it's about the only time Thallus gets used and he's here on 173 and 198). But this means the natural events (the trials, behavior of Pontius Pilate, etc) still have the problems outlined before.
As Ian Howard Marshall states "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." (my emphasis) See the "What counts as a historical Jesus?" thread for evidence of just how true that statement is.
As I have pointed out before various ideas classified as "Christ Myth" would actually fall under Marshall's 'the person called Jesus really exist' aka Bultmann's Reductive position ie be HJ. These include Mead, Allegro, all of G. A. Wells (Paul's Jesus was legendary opposed to mythical), and to some degree even John Robertson's composite Jesus.
Last edited:
But just how often do we have to pause to ask that question? No one here has been arguing for a HJ who corresponds in every particular to any of the gospel Jesuses, why do you keep bringing this up?
Is it because you want to try to equate HJ with the Christ of Christian faith? Are you trying to insinuate that acceptance of the Scholarly consensus on HJ equals religious faith? It gets tiresome.
Lets get back to discussing Carrier and the tubs of Davidic spunk that god used to manufacture a messiah in outer space... That **** is hilarious...
Such a statement by Ian Howard Marshall is quite bizarre.
The inquiry for an historical Jesus is no different to the inquiry into an historical Pilate as Governor of Judea, an historical Caiaphas as High Priest, an historical John the Baptist, an historical King Herod or an historical Tiberius as Emperor.
What confusion is Marshall talking about??
An argument for historicity of any ancient character simply requires credible historical data, credible sources and/or artifacts or archaeological evidence.
There are credible historical sources, artifacts and archaeological evidence for many characters in the NT BUT NONE for Jesus of Nazareth and ALL the supposed disciples directly associated with him.
There was no confusion to accept Romulus and Remus as figures of mythology but all of a sudden it is becomes rather confusing to accept Jesus as a figure of myth when he was born of a Ghost and a Virgin just like Romulus and Remus.
Hundreds of figures of myth are found in Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology and Jesus of Nazareth is one of them.
God is easily accepted as a myth and Jesus is God.
There is no Scholarly consensus that Jesus was a figure of history. Scholars are presently arguing about the nature of Jesus and are writing books claiming that Jesus was myth.
Carrier an historian has declared that Jesus was a figure of myth.
You are arguing against Carrier's myth position right now on this thread.
One freelance Historian with a wacky idea about a sub-lunar Jesus does not cancel out the consensus. This has been explained to you before. Carrier himself acknowledges that he is going against the consensus.
I'm not saying the consensus is right, merely because they are a consensus, I'm just saying that Carrier hasn't changed anything with his book. There have always been fringe theories, and there probably always will.
You mean that isn't the whole point of dejudge's argument? Could have fooled me.
WHICH "Christ of Christian faith"? There as many as there are demonstrations and some go the Jesus as philosopher route. Christianity is NOT monolithic never has been.
I have made my point on this clear various times before. It is the hypothesis driving the data rather then the data driving the hypothesis problem Horace Miner satirized back in 1956.
As mentioned before Einstein himself fell to this. The first time was when he threw in a cosmological constant into his equations to make them fit the hypothesis of a stationary universe common 1917. Then he threw out that cosmological constant when the universe was shown to be expanding.
Ironically that little kludge to make his equations fit the hypothesis of 1917 is turning into the best fit for the modern hypothesis of dark energy.
Einstein also did that on a personal level with Quantum mechanics.
The HJ position had the advantage of the Euhemerism view point coupled with the idea Jesus was an actual person being key part secular as well religious from the 4th to the 18th centuries Heck, questioning the supernatural stuff didn't happen in any meaningful way until the 19th with Sir James George Frazer being called a "Christ Myther" for suggesting the story (and NOT the man himself) was mythical.
If you go in with the 'Man from Mars view' (ie no preconceptions at all) the evidence for Jesus has at best has been insanely weak. If it was anyone else Jesus would be in the 'might have existed' category with the likes of Robin Hood, King Arthur, and John Henry.
No more hilarious then the handful of scholars that claim Thallos is evidence. That is a real hoot. Heck even Eddy-Boyd go there and you wonder why?
Last edited:
Jesus as divine is the only specific distinguishing Christian belief about Jesus, and all real Christians embrace it. I think the "philosopher Jesus" people are not really Christians. Our earliest real informant observed this; Pliny and his "Christo quasi deo". Let's go with that definition of the Christ of Faith.
The Jesus of today's Christian belief is the same one originally described by the anonymous people who wrote the miracle stories in the gospels and letters of the bible.
But the so-called "historical Jesus" claimed by modern-day bible scholars is a pure invention which those bible scholars have created from the biblical figure of Jesus, by simply "rubbing out" all the bits that they no longer wish to believe from the bible.
It's supposed to be the same Jesus. Except that the idea of a HJ is an invention created to counter the increasing scientific & literary evidence showing that biblical claims about Jesus could not be true.
But you could do that same thing for any mythical figure, e.g. for Superman or Alice in Wonderland or anyone ... if you erase all the impossible bits, then you are left with a figure who just might have been real ... e.g. superman no longer flies or produces any superhuman feats, and he just ends up as someone who worked in a newspaper office in the USA ... Alice could be real because girls do exist, some are named Alice, tea and tea parties exist, Hares exist, and March is a real month etc.
You can invent realistic details from even the most mythical figure if you are prepared to simply cross-out all the most essential details which made them impossible in the first place. Though in the case of Jesus, you have to cross out virtually every relevant mention that made anyone claim he was the messiah in the first place.
Last edited:
Again, you insist on writing fallacies about the Pauline Corpus based on UN-EVIDENCED assumptions.
How many times must you be shown that we have ZERO evidence that the Pauline Corpus predated the stories of Jesus?
We have manuscripts of gLuke and gJohn dated around the same time as manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus.
Please, Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and [Papyri 46] are all dated around c 175-225 CE.
In addition, apologetic writers claim that the letters to Churches of the Pauline Corpus were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John and that the Pauline writers KNEW of and commended gLuke.
Also, there are writings attributed to 2nd century apologetic and non-apologetic writers who knew nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.
HJers don't know what they are talking about and don't care about evidence from antiquity so it is really absurd to base your claim about the Last Supper using UN-EVIDENCED assumptions derived from HJ people.
The Last Supper story in the Pauline Corpus is evidence that the author knew of gLuke.
Ians said:
We cannot trace NT stories back to the Pauline Corpus.
It is the complete opposite.
Not one author of the Gospels mentioned Paul, none mentioned his revealed Gospel and none mentioned his post-resurrection narrative with the OVER 500 hundred visit of the resurrected Jesus.
No author of the NT Gospel heard Paul, saw the Pauline Corpus or attended a Pauline Church.
The Pauline writer ADMITTED he was the LAST to be SEEN of Jesus. Over 500 persons knew the story of the Resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul.
The Pauline writers was SEEN of the resurrected Jesus sometime AFTER Celsus' "True Discourse" or after c 180 CE.
The Pauline writer HEARD about the resurrection and then claimed he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.
The Resurrection of Jesus could NOT have happened so the Pauline writer MUST have HEARD about it. The Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED those who believed the Gospel.
The ENTIRE Pauline Corpus were composed AFTER stories of Jesus were ALREADY KNOWN and COMPOSED.
It was "Against Heresies" which presented the FAKE 1st century pre 70 CE authors to argue against the so-called Heretics and give primacy to the Church.
The versions of stories of Jesus by the so-called Heretics PREDATE the Pauline Corpus and the Gospels.
In effect, the NT including the Pauline Corpus is chronologically, historically and theologically bogus.
The Pauline Churches NEVER did exist before c 70 CE.
Last edited:
Again, your argument is bizarre. You are presently trying to show that Carrier's arguments are baseless so it is of no real value for you to tell me that "Carrier acknowledges that he is going against the consensus" when you your self cannot present any evidence at all where historians and Scholars have CONCEDED that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.
No such concession has ever been made at any time in the history of the Quest for an HJ.
In fact, the Quest for an HJ has suffered MULTIPLE failures.
We know the history of the Quest for an HJ and we already know of your attempt to spread CHINESE WHISPERS.
We already know that most of the so-called Scholars who promote the HJ arguments are CHRISTIANS who MUST say Jesus existed or else GOD will BURN them with everlasting fire in Hell.
Brainache said:
Your statement is really of no value.
You have now shown that you are promoting CHINESES Whispers.
There was NEVER any Concession and you have NO idea if your ASSUMED INVENTED Concession is right.
What a waste of time!!!!
Last edited:
Is that why Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in their various books express the view that Jesus was a real person? I hope that Hitchens was saved and isn't burning in everlasting fire in Hell now, and that Dawkins won't burn in Hell either after he dies.
First of all - just because Dawkins and Hitchens are well known as atheists, does not mean that they or any atheists know anything about the historicity of Jesus or that they have to believe Jesus was, or was not, a real person, or that they even have to care about it at all.
Dawkins has said before on a YouTube debate that "Jesus may have been real, he probably was ...... ", and the context of that brief remark (in reply to someone's question) was that he made perfectly clear that he really does not know if Jesus was real or not, and he was not then arguing about Jesus anyway.
I don't known what Hitchens believed about Jesus. But in all the numerous YouTube debates I've seen from him, and all I've read from him, he never mentioned Jesus in any context of disputes about whether he was real or not. That was not usually something that Hitchens was debating or ever trying make claims about.
The dreaded No true Scotsman argument.
Unitarianism (16th century to present) 'perceives Christ as human rather than divine'
Bart D. Ehrman says that Adoptionism (Jesus was a normal human that was 'adopted' by God) goes back to near the time of Jesus - Ehrman, Bart (1996). The Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 48–49.
This belief has show up repeatedly in Christian groups and in the 19th century the idea Jesus being the son of Joseph and Mary was given the name Psilanthropism
They may have been labeled heresies by 'The Church' but the fact of the matter is that some Christians did believe in them.
This is like saying Mormans are not Christian because they supposedly have this idea that the faithful will get to be 'gods' of their own worlds because "true" Christian believe there is only one God.
As you please. The only serious group you name is the Unitarians, and I don't really regard them as Christians. What the modern ones think of themselves I'm not sure. I quite like them, but they don't have anything resembling a Christian definition of Jesus. I do NOT regard Mormons as Christians, and I think their self definition as Christians is simply the result of the influence of the environment in which they exist. In any event their "Christology" is not typically Christian. We should not look to these groups to determine what we mean by a "Christian Jesus".
Eastern (Greek) Orthodox doesn't see hell as a separate place.
Origen has long been presented as a teacher of Christian universalism (Hell is temporary and the Lake of Fire will burn away sins) and a passage from Paul himself suggests the same thing:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive - 1 Corinthians 15:22
Similar ideas appear in Lamentations 3:31-33 -
For the Lord will not cast off for ever: But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies. For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.
and 1 Timothy 4:10 -
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
Paul never even mentions Hell as such. Jesus in Mark makes no reference to eternal punishment. I think he believed that the souls of sinners would be destroyed and annihilated. But the later Gospels have references to posthumous punishments. The doctrine developed quite early.
We are told in four places in the NT that among Jews the Pharisees believed in a future life, with rewards and punishments, but the Sadducees did not. Josephus confirms this.
Last edited:
We continue to steer away from any attempt to show any evidence of Jesus (see footnote).
Where is the evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone?
If neither Paul nor any gospel writers ever met Jesus, and if nobody in the gospels or letters ever wrote to make a credible claim of meeting Jesus, then at very best all you can possibly be left with are fanatical religious beliefs in as spiritual heavenly messiah.
So where is the evidence of Jesus?
Footnote - for the last 20 pages or so, this thread seems to have abandoned all further attempts at ever producing any evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone in the 1st century (or at any time). And that’s what this thread and it’s parent threads were supposed to be about ... HJ posters were supposed to be producing evidence of Jesus. Now all the HJ posts have descended into a talking shop for every conceivable topic in Christian biblical belief, except for any attempt at all to produce evidence of Jesus.
Again, you write fiction. You make up stuff about Jesus and Paul. It is most amazing that you believe what you imagine.
We are not interested in what you imagine in the 21st century but the evidence from antiquity.
We are interested in what the Pauline Corpus and the Gospels state.
Jesus was an Ascending, Resurrecting, Transfiguring, Water walking Son of a God born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God of God from the beginning.
The NT is not an historical account of Jesus and could NEVER be.
The existing stories of Jesus were written in the 2nd century or later and are not historical accounts but admitted fiction and mythology.
dejudge, what on earth does that have to do with whether or not early NT texts refer to Hell?
- Status