The Historical Jesus III

[Belz...]

If you have bothered to READ further on rather then replying to the first thing that caught your fancy you would have seen this:




HOW is that different from what you said?

How about reading things THROUGH before replying so you don't look

I did read it. How about you TONE it down a PEG?

 

[Craig B]

This idea, as many other directed towards removing all responsibility of the Roman authority, as the Pilate hand washing or the direct blaming the Jews, are desperate intents to divert the attention from a basic fact: at this time, crucifixion was an exclusive Roman punishment applied to rebels against Rome (and slaves) ... In this way, their theology about the "princes of the Earth" would be the same and the proselytism in the pagan world more effective. Why the hell they had to invent the crucifixion with the related idea of rebellion and shame? There is not any reason to do it.

Absolutely right. In any case Paul's "princes of the Earth" or "rulers of this world" of 1 Cor 2:8 is a good description of the leaders of the Judean state and its Roman overlords. It surely refers to secular human leaders.

If Paul doesn't allude directly to the Romans as the killers of "The Lord", it is because he too was concerned to conciliate the Roman leaders; indeed he does so in the most abjectly servile terms.

Epistle to the Romans, 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

 

[GDon]

See A Study of the "Flesh" for some of the theological connotations. Also remember you had that whole Jesus was a mass hallucination thing (ie docetism) bouncing around.

I'm aware of how "flesh" was viewed, and how "in the flesh" contrasted with "in the spirit". But "coming in the flesh" only has the one meaning AFAIK. The article you cite doesn't argue differently.

Docetism was about whether Jesus came in the flesh or not. Docetists argued that the Jesus who came to earth did not come in the flesh. If Polycarp argued that Jesus came in the flesh, then he meant an earthly physical Jesus.

 

[maximara]

This idea, as many other directed towards removing all responsibility of the Roman authority, as the Pilate hand washing or the direct blaming the Jews, are desperate intents to divert the attention from a basic fact: at this time, crucifixion was an exclusive Roman punishment applied to rebels against Rome (and slaves).
If the pauline Christians had invented an awful death to their Lord they would have chosen a less conflictive "prince of the Earth" than Roman authority and a less significative capital punishment than crucifixion. This is to say, less annoying for their proselytist intentions. For example, the Jewish authority or Herod Antipas.

In this way, their theology about the "princes of the Earth" would be the same and the proselytism in the pagan world more effective. Why the hell they had to invent the crucifixion with the related idea of rebellion and shame? There is not any reason to do it.

Actually if they were reading "codes" in what would become the OT as well as secret writings now lost to us then they may have felt they were forced into using crucifixion.

It is like Irenaeus claiming Pilate ruled under Claudius; his position for Jesus being 46 if not 50 years old when crucified forced him to make that statement as Luke set that the best you could get would a 34 year old Jesus in 28 CE. Getting to 46 years of age put you at 40 CE at the earliest. His position locked him in even if historical it made no blasted sense.

Also as Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) 'Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet"' Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting paper shows there is some really squirrelly things going on with the tangental events in Gospels and Acts.

This observation is interesting:

"There are significant differences, but had the Egyptian been active in the 30s, instead of in the 50s, historians would undoubtedly have made comparisons with Jesus from Nazareth. The reasons are manifold:
* Like Jesus, the Egyptian had lingered in “the wilderness” or “desert” (ἐρημία).
* Both speak of tearing down the walls of Jerusalem (cf. Luke 19:43-44).
* Both had lived in Egypt.
* Both are described as messianic leaders with a great following.
* Both are perceived as major threats by the authorities.
* ”The Egyptian” is defeated on the Mount of Olives, where Jesus was arrested.

Aside from chronology, the one thing which most clearly distinguishes Jesus and the Egyptianare the circumstances surrounding their defeat: Jesus is arrested on the Mount of Olives, crucified, resurrected, and then vanishes. The Egyptian is defeated in a battle on the Mount of Olives, and then vanishes."

"That Jesus from Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas could be one and the same person is a proposition that has been made previously, by scholars as well as in fictional accounts."

 

[GDon]

Absolutely right. In any case Paul's "princes of the Earth" or "rulers of this world" of 1 Cor 2:8 is a good description of the leaders of the Judean state and its Roman overlords. It surely refers to secular human leaders.

If Paul doesn't allude directly to the Romans as the killers of "The Lord", it is because he too was concerned to conciliate the Roman leaders; indeed he does so in the most abjectly servile terms.

I think Paul thought that there was a conspiracy of rulers to kill Christ, and he got that from the Old Testament. As I point out in my review of Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus", Psalms 2 refers to how the rulers of the earth will react to God's Messiah:

Ps 2.1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2.2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed [Messiah], saying,
2.3 "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
2.4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision."
2.5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
2.6 "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
2.7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
2.8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
2.9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
2.10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
2.11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
2.12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.​

Here we see the 'prediction' laid out: the kings of the earth and the rulers will work together against God and His Messiah, but they should 'be wise' and 'kiss the Son', otherwise the kings and rulers will 'perish from the way'. That this encompasses Paul's outline in 1 Cor 2 -- Paul talks about 'the wisdom of the rulers of this age' and how they are perishing -- is no coincidence in my opinion.

In short: Psalms 2 refers to how the kings and rulers of the earth will set themselves against the Messiah, and Paul assumed that this is how things played out.

 

[David Mo]

Actually if they were reading "codes" in what would become the OT as well as secret writings now lost to us then they may have felt they were forced into using crucifixion.

You can draw whatever you want from the biblical prophecies. About the end of the world, the coming of a prophet or his violent death. Whatever you want. If you want convert some guys and you invent a religion, it is a bad thing if you begin blaming them to have killed your prophet. But to say to the hypothetical converse that your prophet was killed for rebellion and brigandage puts the things worse to you. And still worse if you say that your prophet was executed by the most shameful of deaths, among slaves, thieves and crooks.

Imagine you invent a design religion and you make your prophet a serial killler, paedophile and rapist... that preaches peace and flowers. You are out of your mind! ...or you are making a screenplay for Tarantino, not a religion.

 

[Craig B]

I think Paul thought that there was a conspiracy of rulers to kill Christ, and he got that from the Old Testament. As I point out in my review of Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus", Psalms 2 refers to how the rulers of the earth will react to God's Messiah:

Ps 2.1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2.2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed [Messiah], saying <some verses snipped>
2.9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." <snip>

Here we see the 'prediction' laid out: the kings of the earth and the rulers will work together against God and His Messiah, but they should 'be wise' and 'kiss the Son', otherwise the kings and rulers will 'perish from the way'. That this encompasses Paul's outline in 1 Cor 2 -- Paul talks about 'the wisdom of the rulers of this age' and how they are perishing -- is no coincidence in my opinion.

In short: Psalms 2 refers to how the kings and rulers of the earth will set themselves against the Messiah, and Paul assumed that this is how things played out.​

Psalm 2 is important, and I have referred to it several times in this thread. But again, I think that Paul is trying to make sense of a very embarrassing fact:

Jesus did not break the rulers with a rod of iron, or dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. On the contrary, they tortured him to death like a rebellious slave.

Paul could not possibly have invented that circumstance. Nobody manufacturing the history of a messiah entirely from OT prophecies, real or imagined, would have inserted that event into it. But a writer who was obliged by reality to admit such an event would strive to palliate it by couching his reference to it in prophetic terms derived from these texts. To "explain" it in acceptable terms. That I'm sure is what Paul is doing, and Matthew does it copiously and relentlessly.​

 

[David Mo]

This observation is interesting:

"There are significant differences, but had the Egyptian been active in the 30s, instead of in the 50s, historians would undoubtedly have made comparisons with Jesus from Nazareth. The reasons are manifold:
* Like Jesus, the Egyptian had lingered in “the wilderness” or “desert” (ἐρημία).
* Both speak of tearing down the walls of Jerusalem (cf. Luke 19:43-44).
* Both had lived in Egypt.
* Both are described as messianic leaders with a great following.
* Both are perceived as major threats by the authorities.
* ”The Egyptian” is defeated on the Mount of Olives, where Jesus was arrested.

Aside from chronology, the one thing which most clearly distinguishes Jesus and the Egyptianare the circumstances surrounding their defeat: Jesus is arrested on the Mount of Olives, crucified, resurrected, and then vanishes. The Egyptian is defeated in a battle on the Mount of Olives, and then vanishes."

I agree, this is interesting and opens the possibility that the evangelists copied some features of the Egyptian in their stories about Jesus. But there is a very significant difference: Jesus was crucified. This is not a trifle when discussing about the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

 

[IanS]

Meh. Strictly speaking you are correct. Irenaeus writes: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures.​

Irenaeus appears to tell us that he used to listen to Polycarp's 'discourses which he delivered to the people', which seems to have included Jesus' 'miracles and teachings', and which he 'would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures'. Maybe Polycarp was only referring to apostles having visions of Jesus, but it doesn't sound likely. There appears no reason to read that into the text other than to remove an earthly Jesus AFAICS. And we have Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, where he writes that Jesus came in the flesh.

Anyway, since I believe that the NT itself is enough to establish a prima facie case for the existence of a historical Jesus, I'm not using Polycarp for that purpose. It seems overly convenient for Irenaeus to 'find' someone like Polycarp whom provides a direct link from the apostles to what Irenaeus himself believes, as a counter to heresy in Irenaeus' own day. So Irenaeus must be taken with a grain of salt on this. Still, fragments referring to Papias and Polycarp are interesting.

Apart from all the other problems which have been highlighted for you ; can you please tell us what is the date of this extant copy of Irenaeus that you are quoting from?

 

[dejudge]

The same was said of Julius Caesar. From the lineage of a goddess. Many other didn't say nothing about the miraculous conception of Jesus. They thought Jesus was adopted by Yahweh, as other sacred men in the Antiquity. Nobody said Satan was a man. This is a difference, is it not?

Again, you write laughable nonsense. You seem to think people here have NO access to writings of antiquity about Julius Caesar, Jesus of Nazareth and Satan.

You seem to have no idea that the Romans did worship myth Gods as figures of history.

The biography of Julius Caesar is far different to Jesus the transfiguring water walking Son of a God born of a Ghost and God Creator or Satan the Devil.

Satan the Devil and Jesus the Son of the Ghost [God Creator] were together in conversation at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

There are artifacts which support the historicity of Julius Caesar.

Except for the FAKE Shroud of Turin, all we have for Jesus is fiction.

 

[Craig B]

Apart from all the other problems which have been highlighted for you ; can you please tell us what is the date of this extant copy of Irenaeus that you are quoting from?

Why? Are you suggesting that it is spurious? Invented by Hardouin's Severus Archontius in the Middle Ages. Like Josephus and Caesar?

 

[dejudge]

I think Paul thought that there was a conspiracy of rulers to kill Christ, and he got that from the Old Testament.

Please, we don't need any more modern conspiracy theories.

Please, GDon, you have already admitted the Bible is nothing more than a collection of myths and fables

Jesus in the Pauline Corpus was God's Own Son from Heaven, God Creator, and Equal to God [God Incarnate]--a Myth character.

Christians of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus admitted Jesus was God from the beginning.

The Pauline Corpus does not support the heresy that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.


1 Corinthians 15:47---- The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

2. Romans 8:3--- For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

The God of the Jews, Satan, the Holy Ghost, the Angel Gabriel and JESUS of Nazareth are myth/fiction characters in the collection of myths and fables called the Christian Bible.

Jesus NEVER EVER had any real existence.

 

[Mcreal]

Irenaeus writes his letter to Florinus: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

"I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of 'the Word of life', would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures."​

'the Word of life' is hardly a concrete text.

 

[dejudge]

I agree, this is interesting and opens the possibility that the evangelists copied some features of the Egyptian in their stories about Jesus. But there is a very significant difference: Jesus was crucified. This is not a trifle when discussing about the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

What?? Jesus the transfiguring water walker, the son of a Ghost and God Creator was actually crucified?

Myth Gods were killed or died in Roman'/Greek mythology.

Some people claimed the Roman Senators killed Romulus, the myth founder of Rome who was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

1. Jesus was born of a Ghost---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

2. Jesus and Satan were in conversation in Jerusalem----that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

3. All the miracles of Jesus are fiction---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

4. Jesus instantly transfigured---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

5. Jesus walked on water---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

6. Jesus resurrected----that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

7. Jesus ascended---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

8. Jesus was from heaven---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

 

[GDon]

Irenaeus writes his letter to Florinus: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

"I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of 'the Word of life', would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures."​

'the Word of life' is hardly a concrete text.

I'm claiming that, from the context, 'the Word of life' almost certainly refers to 'Jesus Christ'. What do you think it refers to? What's your best guess, based on context?

 

[Craig B]

What?? Jesus the transfiguring water walker, the son of a Ghost and God Creator was actually crucified?

Myth Gods were killed or died in Roman'/Greek mythology.

Some people claimed the Roman Senators killed Romulus, the myth founder of Rome who was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

1. Jesus was born of a Ghost---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

2. Jesus and Satan were in conversation in Jerusalem----that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

3. All the miracles of Jesus are fiction---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

4. Jesus instantly transfigured---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

5. Jesus walked on water---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

6. Jesus resurrected----that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

7. Jesus ascended---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

8. Jesus was from heaven---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

I know it's impossible to get you to stop mindlessly churning out this stuff; but just to stress. The "not a trifle" that David Mo is referring to - and it is a very important difference indeed - is that Jesus was executed, as we are informed, while the "Egyptian" escaped and disappeared.

 

[dejudge]

I'm claiming that, from the context, 'the Word of life' almost certainly refers to 'Jesus Christ'. What do you think it refers to? What's your best guess, based on context?

Christians typically claim Jesus their Lord and Christ is the "Word of life".

You have one problem!!!

Obscure HJ was not the "Word of life".

The "Word of life" is reference to the Jesus of Faith.

The "Word of life" is a direct product of the Words of the Lord in Scripture--NEVER of history.

The "Word of life" LIVES ONLY in the Christian Scriptures--a collection of myths and fables.

 

[dejudge]

What?? Jesus the transfiguring water walker, the son of a Ghost and God Creator was actually crucified?

Myth Gods were killed or died in Roman'/Greek mythology.

Some people claimed the Roman Senators killed Romulus, the myth founder of Rome who was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

1. Jesus was born of a Ghost---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

2. Jesus and Satan were in conversation in Jerusalem----that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

3. All the miracles of Jesus are fiction---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

4. Jesus instantly transfigured---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

5. Jesus walked on water---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

6. Jesus resurrected----that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

7. Jesus ascended---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

8. Jesus was from heaven---that is not a trifle when discussing the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.

I know it's impossible to get you to stop mindlessly churning out this stuff; but just to stress. The "not a trifle" that David Mo is referring to - and it is a very important difference indeed - is that Jesus was executed, as we are informed, while the "Egyptian" escaped and disappeared.

What ridiculous statement you utter. You have been churning out biology and history from gMark and gMatthew.

We have been informed that Jesus the son of a Ghost was executed in gMatthew.

We have been informed that Jesus the Transfiguring Water walker was executed in gMark.

We have been informed that Jesus the Son of a Ghost was crucified in gLuke.

We have been informed that Jesus God Creator, the Logos was crucified in gJohn.

We have been informed that Jesus God's Son from HEAVEN was crucified in the Pauline Corpus.

We have been informed of the crucifixion of a myth/fiction character called Jesus of Nazareth.

You seem to forget that people here are informed.

We know the CREED of the Church which Canonised the NT.

We are informed that Jesus was God of God and born of a Ghost according to the consensus of Jesus cults and the Roman Government since at least the 4th century.

 

[dejudge]

Jesus did not break the rulers with a rod of iron, or dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. On the contrary, they tortured him to death like a rebellious slave.

Paul could not possibly have invented that circumstance. Nobody manufacturing the history of a messiah entirely from OT prophecies, real or imagined, would have inserted that event into it.


But a writer who was obliged by reality to admit such an event would strive to palliate it by couching his reference to it in prophetic terms derived from these texts. To "explain" it in acceptable terms. That I'm sure is what Paul is doing, and Matthew does it copiously and relentlessly.

What a complete logical fallacy!!! You no evidence whatsoever to support your absurd outburst.

It is clear that virtually every event in the NT about Jesus was invented yet you put out the absurdity that "Paul could not possibly have invented that circumstance".

Even a Christian, on this very thread, admits the Bible is nothing more that a collection of myths and fables.

 

[Craig B]

What ridiculous statement you utter. You have been churning out biology and history from gMark and gMatthew.

We have been informed that Jesus the son of a Ghost was executed in gMatthew.

We have been informed that Jesus the Transfiguring Water walker was executed in gMark.

We have been informed that Jesus the Son of a Ghost was crucified in gLuke.

We have been informed that Jesus God Creator, the Logos was crucified in gJohn.

We have been informed that Jesus God's Son from HEAVEN was crucified in the Pauline Corpus.

We have been informed of the crucifixion of a myth/fiction character called Jesus of Nazareth.

You seem to forget that people here are informed.

We know the CREED of the Church which Canonised the NT.

We are informed that Jesus was God of God and born of a Ghost according to the consensus of Jesus cults and the Roman Government since at least the 4th century.

I refer to your "churning", so what do we get? More churning. That was predictable, I suppose.