The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

The point in all this is why complicate things by saying Paul doesn't exist?

The 19th century radical Dutch theory that Paul didn't exist just over complicates things. There is a reason that the idea didn't really get and traction then and isn't that common among Christ Mythers today; it serves no real purpose and violates Occam's razor.

What purpose does it serve ... ?

These are more significant remarks than you appear to realise! I praise your innocent forthrightness.

dejudge's remarks about evidence (crazy as they are) you entirely ignore. As regards the existence of people, you assert or deny it according to "purpose". Evidence is neither here nor there. dejudge for once is right. The evidential criteria on which the mythicists reject a historical Jesus requires them to reject Paul too.

Do you say: but the strength of evidence for Paul compels us to admit his existence? Not a bit of it! You ask what would be the "purpose" of rejecting Paul.

In short, your criterion is ideological.

As I have stated, the "purpose" of rejecting HJ is to refute Christianity. This "purpose" is not served by rejecting Paul, even though we have (by MJ criteria) no more reason for believing in him than in Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

...As I have stated, the "purpose" of rejecting HJ is to refute Christianity. This "purpose" is not served by rejecting Paul, even though we have (by MJ criteria) no more reason for believing in him than in Jesus.

As usual you cannot present any evidence for an historical Paul and has NEVER EVER produce any evidence that letters under the name of Paul were composed c 50-60 CE.

You have been asked multiple times to identify the manuscripts or Papyri of the variant Pauline Corpus that were composed c50-60 CE and have utterly failed to do so.

The extant manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus [Papyri 46] have been dated to the 2nd century or later.

No author of the Pauline Corpus has claimed that they wrote letters to Churches c50-60 CE.

No author of the NT claimed letters under the name of Paul were composed c50-60 CE.

Paul is a product of fiction and the Pauline Corpus was NOT known by Christian and non-Christian writers like the author of the short gMark, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Municius Felix, Arnobius and Celsus.

Up to the 4th century, there was NO historical data for Jesus and Paul based on writings attributed to JULIAN.

No-one today, Scholar or not, will be able to present any historical data for Paul of the NT and will not be able to present any historical data that letters under the name of Paul were composed since the time of Claudius.

 

[Craig B]

As usual you cannot present any evidence for an historical Paul and has NEVER EVER produce any evidence that letters under the name of Paul were composed c 50-60 CE.

You have been asked multiple times to identify the manuscripts or Papyri of the variant Pauline Corpus that were composed c50-60 CE and have utterly failed to do so.

The extant manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus [Papyri 46] have been dated to the 2nd century or later.

No author of the Pauline Corpus has claimed that they wrote letters to Churches c50-60 CE.

No author of the NT claimed letters under the name of Paul were composed c50-60 CE.

Paul is a product of fiction and the Pauline Corpus was NOT known by Christian and non-Christian writers like the author of the short gMark, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Municius Felix, Arnobius and Celsus.

Up to the 4th century, there was NO historical data for Jesus and Paul based on writings attributed to JULIAN.

No-one today, Scholar or not, will be able to present any historical data for Paul of the NT and will not be able to present any historical data that letters under the name of Paul were composed since the time of Claudius.

Yes, I know you say that. You have said it millions of times. Now, tell me what you think of maximara's question: what is the purpose of denying the historicity of Paul? What do you make of such a question? Or do you not distinguish between purpose and evidence? This has long been my complaint against MJ. It has an ideological "purpose".

 

[tsig]

These are more significant remarks than you appear to realise! I praise your innocent forthrightness.

dejudge's remarks about evidence (crazy as they are) you entirely ignore. As regards the existence of people, you assert or deny it according to "purpose". Evidence is neither here nor there. dejudge for once is right. The evidential criteria on which the mythicists reject a historical Jesus requires them to reject Paul too.

Do you say: but the strength of evidence for Paul compels us to admit his existence? Not a bit of it! You ask what would be the "purpose" of rejecting Paul.

In short, your criterion is ideological. As I have stated, the "purpose" of rejecting HJ is to refute Christianity. This "purpose" is not served by rejecting Paul, even though we have (by MJ criteria) no more reason for believing in him than in Jesus.

Really? Every single person that doubts the HJ does so in order to refute Christianity?

 

[Craig B]

Really? Every single person that doubts the HJ does so in order to refute Christianity?

Eh? Come again?

 

[maximara]

These are more significant remarks than you appear to realise! I praise your innocent forthrightness.

dejudge's remarks about evidence (crazy as they are) you entirely ignore. As regards the existence of people, you assert or deny it according to "purpose". Evidence is neither here nor there. dejudge for once is right. The evidential criteria on which the mythicists reject a historical Jesus requires them to reject Paul too.

No it doesn't as I have explained before. It is a matter of scale.

Remsburg who was definitely on the HJ side of the fence showed this over 100 years ago. The information that we have on Jesus doesn't match the scale of the man described in the Gospels even after you have stripped away all the supernatural stuff.

By contrast what we have regarding Paul is exactly what you would expect of a relatively minor figure puffed up to importance.

As I have stated, the "purpose" of rejecting HJ is to refute Christianity. This "purpose" is not served by rejecting Paul, even though we have (by MJ criteria) no more reason for believing in him than in Jesus.

As I pointed out before this is nonsense. Look at how hard Christianity is fighting the idea Jesus was a simple man. You see an near desperation to keep as much of the Gospel account intact as is possible. We have actual scholars trying to say the resurrection was real through the use of drugs and using volcanoes to explain the three hours of darkness.

As I said a long time ago most of Christianity has locked itself into this myth, madman, messiah mindset. And by myth they do NOT mean an actual man puffed up into the Christ of the Gospels as Remsburg did but a fictional creation.

 

[Walter Ego]

I am not a Bible Believer at all, and you know it. This, as I have pointed out in this thread recently, is the absurd line taken by the mythicists. They accuse rationalist HJ proponents of preaching Christianity.

Extremists often come to resemble what they are apposing.

Atheist biblical literalism: The Bible is a book of lies and fairy tales and if you believe any of it (e.g., that there was a real person named Jesus), you believe all of it or, at the very least, you are aiding and abetting the Bible Believers.

Something very like the above was espoused recently by no less an atheist luminary than Aronra, president of the Texas Atheists. (@ about the 5:55 mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y3xU6-a2NwA#t=355

 

[dejudge]

As usual you cannot present any evidence for an historical Paul and has NEVER EVER produce any evidence that letters under the name of Paul were composed c 50-60 CE.

You have been asked multiple times to identify the manuscripts or Papyri of the variant Pauline Corpus that were composed c50-60 CE and have utterly failed to do so.

The extant manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus [Papyri 46] have been dated to the 2nd century or later.

No author of the Pauline Corpus has claimed that they wrote letters to Churches c50-60 CE.

No author of the NT claimed letters under the name of Paul were composed c50-60 CE.

Paul is a product of fiction and the Pauline Corpus was NOT known by Christian and non-Christian writers like the author of the short gMark, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Municius Felix, Arnobius and Celsus.

Up to the 4th century, there was NO historical data for Jesus and Paul based on writings attributed to JULIAN.

No-one today, Scholar or not, will be able to present any historical data for Paul of the NT and will not be able to present any historical data that letters under the name of Paul were composed since the time of Claudius.

Yes, I know you say that. You have said it millions of times. Now, tell me what you think of maximara's question: what is the purpose of denying the historicity of Paul? What do you make of such a question? Or do you not distinguish between purpose and evidence? This has long been my complaint against MJ. It has an ideological "purpose".

Your intellectual dishonesty continues.

I have answered the question a "million" times.

The character called Paul is a fiction character just like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John fabricated to FALSELY give primacy to the Christian Canon.

In a most clumsy fashion the author of "Against Heresies" argues that Jesus was crucified when he was OLD MAN at least 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius or around c 49 CE.

How in the world could Paul preach Christ crucified in the time of King Aretas c37-41 CE when it was TAUGHT in the very same Church of LYONS that Jesus was CRUCIFIED in the time of CLAUDIUS around c 49 CE?

The Pauline character and Pauline Corpus are products of CLUMSY FICTION.

See "Against Heresies" 2.22

Anyone who is familiar with writings of antiquity should recognise very easily that ALL CHRISTIAN writers KNEW stories of Jesus but it was NOT until the late 3rd century or early 4th century that ALL CHRISTIAN writers acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline character and the Pauline Corpus MUST have or most likely were FABRICATED no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

 

[dejudge]

Extremists often come to resemble what they are apposing.

Atheist biblical literalism: The Bible is a book of lies and fairy tales and if you believe any of it (i.e., that there was a real person named Jesus), you believe all of it or, at the very least, you are aiding and abetting the Bible Believers.

Something very like the above was espoused recently by no less an atheist luminary than Aronra, president of the Texas Atheists. (@ about the 5:55 mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y3xU6-a2NwA#t=355

What extreme bizarre logic!!! What a bizarre confession!!

You believe Jesus literally existed in a book of admitted lies and fairy tales.

It is most fascinating that you would accept the historical garbage [the NT Canon] as a source to BELIEVE.

 

[Walter Ego]

I went back to the beginning of this thread (2008!) and post #2 sums up my opinion very well.

My position is that, if I had to bet, then I would say there was a person off of whom the Gospels were written. But it is impossible to be sure what he actually taught and what was added on afterwards, and what he actually did and what was added on afterwards. Especially when some of the stories contradict known history or even themselves.

Also, every researcher who looks for the REAL Jesus always make some biased conclusion. Like some come away saying he was a Jewish reformer, and others say he was a hippie, and others say he was etc. etc. They always take whichever quotes they like and use those as evidence and overlook other ones that go against their view.

I mean, I am pretty sure that there was a Jesus dude, I just think that he was lost in the mythology.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3817326#post3817326

 

[maximara]

I am not a Bible Believer at all, and you know it. This, as I have pointed out in this thread recently, is the absurd line taken by the mythicists. They accuse rationalist HJ proponents of preaching Christianity. In your case I've said that you can't be made to stop such nonsense, and that you have no other argument than this absurdity.

I don't choose to believe in ghosts and angels whether they are in the NT or not. But these NT people I do choose to believe in:
Pontius Pilate - governor of Judea
Sergius Paulus - governor of Cyprus
Erastus - city treasurer of Corinth
Gallio - governor of Corinth
Aretas - king of the Nabataeans

A Pontius Pilate who is shoehorned into the reign of Claudius Caesar so Irenaeus can get his 46+ year old Jesus which is implied by gJohn and "even as the Gospel and all the elders testify"

An Aretas who Paul claims was in control of Damascus which logic and history doesn't support. As I said before Paul's story of Aretas having enough control Damascus to have a garrison (300-1000 men) go after him leaves us with six possibilities:

1) Aretas controlled Damascus after the war with Antipas ie 37-40: extremely unlikely based on social-political factors. Caligula wouldn't have given a willful barbarian lands controlled by one of his friends and supporters.

2) Aretas controlled Damascus during the the war with Antipas ic 36: again extremely unlikely as Vitellius controlled those lands and would not have left a garrison of men where it could outflank his armies or ravage his lands.

3) Aretas controlled Damascus before the war with Antipas but after Philip died ie 33/34 -36: again extremely unlikely as Vitellius had been given the lands of Philip.

4) Aretas controlled Damascus before the war with Antipas when Philip was alive ie between 28-33 CE: Philip did have his wife "stolen" from him by Antipas who daughter had been "abandoned" by Antipas so an alliance between Phillip and Aretas is possible. Also some sources claim that Damascus had been given to Herod the Great meaning it would have been part of the portion of the kingdom Phillip gained (other sources say it wasn't but we go with those that say it was for the sake of the argument). A flanking maneuver to surround Antipas lands would militarily make sense. If Paul's story is true this seems to be the most likely time it could have occurred...except it creates a greater likelihood of conflict with when Jesus ministry was; a 34-36 Jesus ministry would created a real mess regarding Paul's vision.

5) Paul is misremembering/exaggerating events and Aretas never controlled Damascus

6) The 2 Cor. 11:32-33 passage is "a marginal "gloss" copied into the text, or even a later insertion ie it was NEVER written by Paul.

As for the rest there is this little thing called historical fiction.

As I pointed out some time ago it would be as if one took an account of English First officer Edward James Truman dealing with would be saboteurs under a full moon aboard the Titanic before it hits the iceberg on April 14, 1912 at face value. Yes there was a Titanic that hit an iceberg on April 14, 1912 but everything else in that is fiction.

The computer game Titanic: Adventure Out of Time uses a better framework. The night is moonless and the first officer is a Scott named William McMaster Murdoch as history records but you still have a lot of fiction there as well: a painting by Adolf Hitler being used to smuggle battle plans, a jewel-encrusted copy of The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám that will be used to pay the Black Hand (the real one is at the bottom of the sea), and a spy's note book containing the names of key members of the Communists. You even play as Frank Carlson who is among the list of passengers who in reality had his car break down and never boarded the Titanic.

Redjack: Revenge of the Brethren has you met Blackbeard and Assassins Creed plays 'spot that famous person' and teaks hsitory so that everything fits.

And the Jesus story has much the same problem.

 

[dejudge]

I went back to the beginning of this thread (2008!) and post #2 sums up my opinion very well.

After 7 years you still have NO evidence from antiquity to present for the HJ argument.

It is most fascinating that you would refer to someone's opinion--NOT evidence from antiquity--to "sum" up your BELIEF about Jesus.

 

[maximara]

I went back to the beginning of this thread (2008!) and post #2 sums up my opinion very well.

That is Robert Price's position (which I might add is labeled Christ Myth):

"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs." - Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction


"What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time." - Price, Robert (2000) Deconstructing Jesus, pp. 15-16


"My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." - Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction


But Price's "Jesus agnosticism" position is labeled Christ Myth (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25) so that leaves us where?

 

[dejudge]

The posters here who are attempting to argue that Paul in the NT was a figure of history will NOT be able to present a single non-apologetic source from antiquity to support such an argument.

Even in the NT, the sources that mention Paul are known established historical garbage and forgeries.

The pattern of the NT is very consistent.

The authors of the NT were FABRICATED to falsely give primacy to the NT Canon.

All of the NT authors are FAKES.

 

[Craig B]

A Pontius Pilate who is shoehorned into the reign of Claudius Caesar so Irenaeus can get his 46+ year old Jesus which is implied by gJohn and "even as the Gospel and all the elders testify"

An Aretas who Paul claims was in control of Damascus which logic and history doesn't support. As I said before Paul's story of Aretas having enough control Damascus to have a garrison (300-1000 men) go after him leaves us with six possibilities: <snip all six possibilities>

None of this has the least relevance. I assert that Pontius Pilate and Aretas are mentioned in the "Bible" and that we have unimpeachable evidence for the existence of both persons.

 

[Craig B]

How in the world could Paul preach Christ crucified in the time of King Aretas c37-41 CE when it was TAUGHT in the very same Church of LYONS that Jesus was CRUCIFIED in the time of CLAUDIUS around c 49 CE?

That's the sort of question you put from time to time dejudge, that makes me wonder if we are on the same planet. Paul was never in Lugdunum and still less was he obliged to adapt his teaching to what might (very much later!) have been preached by Christians there.

 

[maximara]

None of this has the least relevance. I assert that Pontius Pilate and Aretas are mentioned in the "Bible" and that we have unimpeachable evidence for the existence of both persons.

You are dodging the point as usual.

As I said before just because Atlanta, Georgia and Abraham Lincoln existed during the Civil War doesn't mean Rhett Butler, Scarlett O'Hare, or Augustus Stoneman were real people.

As least with Paul we some of his supposed writings just as we have for Apollonius of Tyana and we have First Epistle of Clement (c95 CE) which references Paul so we have a possible contemporary to Paul.

 

[maximara]

That's the sort of question you put from time to time dejudge, that makes me wonder if we are on the same planet. Paul was never in Lugdunum and still less was he obliged to adapt his teaching to what might (very much later!) have been preached by Christians there.

Given that dejudge is asking a matter of time Paul himself being in Lugdunum is irrelevant. The fact that Irenaeus could claim Pontius Pilate as running Judea during the reign of Claudius Caeser (ie no earlier then 41 CE) with impunity (we have no contemporary records of anyone challenging him no do we? ) shows either no Christian really had any clue when these people actual ruled or they were really into the supernatural kool-aid.

Looks at Revelation...I say the second is the better option.

 

[Craig B]

You are dodging the point as usual.

No, I'm not. It's my point and it is this: being named in the Bible doesn't mean a person is necessarily fictitious.

As I said before just because Atlanta, Georgia and Abraham Lincoln existed during the Civil War doesn't mean Rhett Butler, Scarlett O'Hare, or Augustus Stoneman were real people.

You're dodging the point as usual. The Bible is not a work of fiction in the sense that GWTW is a work of fiction. That, too, is one of my points.

 

[IanS]

I went back to the beginning of this thread (2008!) and post #2 sums up my opinion very well.

Quote:
My position is that, if I had to bet, then I would say there was a person off of whom the Gospels were written. But it is impossible to be sure what he actually taught and what was added on afterwards, and what he actually did and what was added on afterwards. Especially when some of the stories contradict known history or even themselves.

Also, every researcher who looks for the REAL Jesus always make some biased conclusion. Like some come away saying he was a Jewish reformer, and others say he was a hippie, and others say he was etc. etc. They always take whichever quotes they like and use those as evidence and overlook other ones that go against their view.

I mean, I am pretty sure that there was a Jesus dude, I just think that he was lost in the mythology.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...26#post3817326

Well that quote sounds eminently reasonable. Except there is one great yawning credibility gap within it. Namely ...

... how did the writer of that post get from acknowledging all the problems and fictions in the biblical stories of Jesus, to then saying that he/she is nevertheless "pretty sure" there was a Jesus"?

On the one hand you have, as the poster says, a whole mass of untrue fictional preaching in the bible .... then there is a huge gap of completely missing evidence ... and then you have the poster just gliding over the gap as if by a miracle and concluding that he is "pretty sure" Jesus existed.

Well what happened in the yawning great gap? The gap where the actual evidence is supposed to be?

Where was the evidence that persuaded that poster to be "pretty sure" about Jesus? Or did the complete lack of any genuine reliable evidence not matter?

If the missing evidence is not of any concern to that poster, then what he is describing is a faith position. He is taking it on trust that the biblical writers would not have been preaching "smoke without fire" and that they must have had something more than faith as evidence of Jesus. That poster is bridging the gap by placing his trust in 1st century religious faith. And that was a faith born of 1st century superstitious ignorance that believed in the certainty of miraculous gods and spirits visiting earth from the heavens so as to fulfil the divinely inspired prophecies of the old testament.

That's what is actually filling that gap. Not any factual evidence, but that 1st century ignorance of miraculous gods and spirits from the heavens.