Christmas time! So time to sell magazines (etc.) with sensational, poorly reasoned articles which attempt to be bold and provocative. It’s as predictable as the rising sun.
No book is evidence, right? Right. Else we’d be able to prove the reality of Batman by citing a comic book.
[Facepalm]
This argument kills with 8th-graders. But any adults should be unimpressed. I’ll wager that any adult can think of many written reports that are important evidence for all kinds of claims!
Dear would-be Jesus de-bunker: kindly reflect on this fact. 0% of historians believe Batman is a real guy. And rounding up (to account for a very, very few kooks) 100% of historians believe that Jesus was a real Jewish man. Now, why is this?
Please, don’t make me facepalm again by replying with some conspiracy theory. Remember, these are historians of all or no religious convictions.
Here’s Dr. Michael J. Kruger ably rebutting the latest seasonal silliness. Just ignore the bit where he insists no one can show there contradictions between the New Testament books; that’s not at all essential to his case. In part,
…Tarico appeals to the well-worn argument that since Paul, our earliest Christian writer, provides little biographical details of Jesus’ life, then Jesus must not have existed. This argument is problematic on a number of levels.
(a) First this argument misunderstands entirely what Paul’s letters were designed to do. They were epistles, not Gospels, and therefore not intended to recount the words and deeds of Jesus. Tarico is confused about the genre of early Christian writings and assumes they would all cover the same territory.
(b) Paul actually knows quite a bit of historical details about Jesus and these come out in various places in his letters. One key example is how he recounts (in detail) what Jesus did and said at the Last Supper (1 Corr 11:23-26).
(c) Paul would have known the immediate disciples of Jesus, such as Peter and John, and would have had access to many other people who lived during the time of Jesus. If Jesus never existed, are we to think that Peter and John just lied to Paul? Or are we to think that Paul just made up characters of Peter and James and the witnesses of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-8)? And if Jesus never existed, would not Paul have heard this from other people who were alive in the purported time of Jesus’ life? In the end, Paul’s life is nonsensical if Jesus didn’t really exist.
The whole argument about Paul not mentioning the historical Jesus (other than being patently wrong) is so stupid I can’t believe people actually say it with a straight face. I mean I’m absolutely sure we can find letters from Engels which talk about the ideas of Marx the organization of movements around his ideas and so on without taking much at all about the historical Marx, letters which are dated before any biography of Marx.
To think that fact would be an argument against the existence of Marx, putting aside the rest of the evidence for him, is stupid.
I find people who deny the historicity or Jesus of Nazareth fascinating, it’s almost as if they are afraid that if they accept the fact unanimously accepted by historians that Jesus of Nazareth, roughly described by the gospels, lives and died and was a historical person, they might be forced to become Christians or something.
Roman,
Good points.
“The whole argument about Paul not mentioning the historical Jesus[…] is so stupid”
===
Paul didn’t need to mention a historical Jesus when he came up with a Christianity based on a mythological Jesus appearing on his way to Damascus.
The vision on the road to Damascus didn’t tell him anything until he met with the Apostles in Jerusalem.
Listen if you have an argument make it … so far all you’ve provided is a statement, this is what Paul did, but no argument for it …
What argument do you want me to do? That a “vision” supports a mythical Jesus?
All you know about Paul is that he persecuted Christians that believed in a resurrected carnal Jesus.
No one argues that Pauls vision is evidence for the historical Jesus, so that’s a srawman ….
An argument I want you to do is one that would establish why it’s more reasonable to believe Jesus was not a historical figure than the fact that he was.
I didn’t use Paul as straw man. I used Paul to specifically argue that a mythical Jesus in Paul’s vision, is more reasonable theory than a historical Jesus theory.
Paul seemed to be the one who started a “historical/mythical” Jesus religious competition on Christian arena.
What’s the argument?
Markean and Q traditions go farther back than Paul, as does information Paul quotes. The gospels are records of the historical Jesus …
But you haven’t presented any argument …. Present one, if you have one.
Try to get some correct information about the order of writings.
Paul is the first guy who wrote about a mythical Messiah Jesus, that appeared on his way to Damascus and that resurrects in spirit by following whatever religious doctrines Paul thought of.
Nobody denies that there was a religious sect that believed in a Messiah who reportedly said: “Don’t try to see a carnal resurrection, just believe it” (I think it was said to someone called Thomas)
THEN the gospels were written by anonymous priests of incipient Christian religion, trying to place a historical Jesus piggybacking on Roman history using traditions a religious sect started.
Ok, that’s your claim, but why should we believe it?
Paul talks to Jesus’ brother, the last supper was a tradition, he quotes Jesus at certain times, talks about those who were with Jesus in the flesh, he talks about Jesus crucifixion and so on.
The gospels were written later but in the lifetime of the eye witnesses, and from earlier oral tradition, and traditions that only make sense within a second temple period, they also did so seperately, without collaboration. John wrote his gospel last so the whole thing where you quote “Thomas” wouldn’t have the implications you claim since almost all the eye witnesses would have been dead.
The gospels also have plenty of things which would be embarrassing for the early church.
But so far all you’ve given is an account, but no reason to believe it’s plausible. I mean there is no reason to believe your huge conspiracy, (which none of the enemies of early Christianity thought to call out, amazingly), over the obvious fact that Jesus existed, people wrote down the eye witness traditions within their generation, and that we have writings from a prominent member of his movement who joined after Jesus’ death, who pushed a specific interpretation of it.
It’s in the bible that Paul talked to a mythical Jesus that appeared on his way to Damascus. I’ve heard some guys saying about Paul talking to a Jesus brother, now you say you have quotes from Paul quoting a carnal Jesus talking with Paul. I’ve read the bible many times, but I’ve never read what you say, in the bible.
I mentioned a “Thomas” because a Jesus told him that’s better to have resurrection as a myth (to have faith in his resurrection), because, I guess, carnal resurrection were common happening in those times Matthew 27:52
I am not interested in a historical/mythical Jesus fights, I just don’t care if a Jesus was historical or mythical. I think that it’s possible that a guy called Yesuhah existed, but also that Christianity is based on a mythical Jesus. Whatever gospels say, they are not intended as historical documents, thus the embarrassing confusions and Christian contradictions in placing a Jesus in the Roman history.
“It’s in the bible that Paul talked to a mythical Jesus that appeared on
his way to Damascus. I’ve heard some guys saying about Paul talking to a
Jesus brother, now you say you have quotes from Paul quoting a carnal
Jesus talking with Paul. I’ve read the bible many times, but I’ve never
read what you say, in the bible.”
The NT does not teach that Paul talked to a “mythical” Jesus (=imaginary, not real). That’s your spin on the presentation.
What proponents of a mythical Jesus don’t realize is that the scholarly apparatus of historical investigation has to be thrown out in order to sustain mythicism. No serious historian accepts the notion that the very tools that comprise their trade should be discarded, and so mythicism is typically not considered a valid historical enterprise.
~Sean
The NT is a church collection of stories, one of them says that a Paul had a vision of a Jesus, not that a Paul met a carnal Jesus.
There’s a story of a Paul who’s said that he persecuted people of a religious Jewish sect that believed that their teachers resurrected carnally, not that a Paul was in relationship whatsoever with that religious sect that believed the guy they got some teachings from, had a proof of carnal resurrection. Just that a guy named Jesus existed. So what?
However, Paul was a religious guy too, a Hellenistic Jew who could found a carnal resurrection ridiculous, so he came up with a “spiritual” one, or a mythical one that resurrects through teachings of a “Christ”.
Whatever could raise a new religion.
No, Paul talked about the ressurected Christ, which, even if you believe he wasn’t ressurected, implies he lived and died, and then he talked about meeting those that knew him in the flesh including his relatives.
The thing with Jesus and Thomas is absolutely irrelevant to the historical Jesus, it’s really pointless for you to bring it up.
There most definitely were thousands of people named yeshua, that isn’t the question, the question is about Jesus of Nazareth as described by the gospels. There is a reason almost no serious historian doubts that Jesus existed.
I don’t know what you mean by “historical documents,” I mean do you believe Josephus was a historical document? Or how about Tacitus or Herodotus? These were ancient historical documents. So of course the gospels were historical in that they were doing a biography of Jesus of Nazareth based on eye witness traditions.
You obviously do care about the historical Jesus debate (which isn’t really a debate among serious historians, they all accept the fact that Jesus or Nazareth was a historical figure), otherwise you wouldn’t be making the claims you are.
Yet, none the less, you still, after being asked more than once, haven’t given one single argument as to why we should accept the myth hypothesis over the historical one, you’ve given plenty of strawmen (no one here ever claimed Paul knew Jesus in the flesh) and red herrings (no one argues about the historical Jesus primarily from Paul), and you’ve given a conspiracy theory account, but no rational reason why anyone should believe it.
I guess you just take it on faith.
I don’t deny that a Paul talked about a Christ resurrected in his vision on his way to Damascus. Paul talks a lot about spiritual resurrections through the teachings of a Christ, or a Messiah, NOT a carnal historical Jesus. I don’t know why Christians that believe in a “historical” Jesus are irked by that.
In the case of a Jesus, there is NO historian who met a Jesus. At most they described only what a religious sect believed. In those times there were a lot of religious sects, did Christians fabricated the best one? Apparently yes, their religion was put in power and became totalitarian until it has fallen flat on its face, when the masses got more educated.
There are historical personalities who historians met and wrote about them, if a Jesus was more than those historical personalities, it is expected more clarity about that, not just faiths and beliefs.
No, Paul also talked about Jesus before he was reasurecred, crucified under Pilate, had the last supper, had siblings, gave instruction and so on.
Paul talked about both, the reason people are “irked” by that, is because it’s simple false.
There is almost no historical person in history (ancient history that is) that mett a historian, especially 1rst century peasants, nor would anyone expect that. The Synoptics are based on eye witness testimony, which is why all historians today believe in the historical Jesus.
Anyway, I’m going to ask one more time, this is getting tiring. Why is it more rational to believe the Jesus myth theory than in the historical Jesus, assertions (which are all you’ve made so far) are not arguments, you’ve made baseless assertions with no arguments attached, so why should anyone believe your theory?
Especially given that no historian believes it.
“Paul also talked about Jesus before he was reasurecred, crucified under Pilate, had the last supper, had siblings, gave instruction and so on.”
===
How do you support those false assertions?
1 Corinthians 11:23 – Jesus betrayal and last supper
1 Timothy 6:13 – Jesus before Pilate
1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 – Jesus death and burial
Galatians 1:19 – James the brother of Jesus
1 Corinthians 7:12 – teaching from Jesus
Just to name a few, there are many many instances where Paul mentions Jesus prior to the redirection. I’m not going to list them all.
But still you have not ONCE defended any of your assertions, or given any reason why the myth theory is better than the one all historians accept? Care to give one?
A lot of made up letters by the church in the name of a Paul, are just that, fabricated letters.
Did I claim that the myth theory is better than the historical theory?
Christians are creating a false dilemma, that there are only two situations when it comes to talk about a Jesus, historical vs. mythical.
There’s a third situation: Nobody gives a rat’s ass about a Jesus.
If you fall under the third situation I have no idea why you’re using your time and energy posting on a website called trinities.org and dialoguing with someone who does care about Jesus about his historicity.
It seems like you certainly do care, or just have nothing else to do, and like arguing about subjects you are ignorant of, and don’t care about.
Thanks for reminding me that I am wasting my time with a Jesus.
Seriously. Thank you.
All who promote mythicism are wasting their time, not just you. Mythicists are taken even less seriously by professional historians than creationists are taken by evolutionary biologists.
~Sean
Sorry if I gave the impression that promote mysticism (or historical speculations). Actually I don’t care about any kind of Jesus, I was just amazed how Christians try to make their religion interesting by claiming historicity/mysticism of a Yeshuah
Not “mysticism” but “mythicism”. See:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html
Is that site not describing your approach?
~Sean
“mystic” – “mythic”
If you need more than a sentence to explain the difference, then the words have a similar sense. (I didn’t say “same sense”)
“Mythicism” is the name of a theory used by Christians who don’t believe in “historical” theory, or just don’t consider the difference between theories relevant to their faith.
I am a disbeliever in both theories.
“If you need more than a sentence to explain the difference, then the words have a similar sense. (I didn’t say “same sense”)”
That’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever read.
“”Mythicism” is the name of a theory used by Christians who don’t believe in
“historical” theory, or just don’t consider the difference between theories relevant to their faith. I am a disbeliever in both theories.”
Well, I always say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck, and based on what you’ve written here, you appear to be a mythicist.
~Sean
Nah, you aren’t successful in pushing me in that idiotic hysterical-metaphorical Jesus scandal, I let Christians do their usual infighting since Paul vs Gospels holy war.
“Nah, you aren’t successful in pushing me in that idiotic
hysterical-metaphorical Jesus scandal, I let Christians do their usual
infighting since Paul vs Gospels holy war.”
No push was needed; you’re already there.
That’s what you think 🙂
Right, Paul isn’t writing a gospel (something that mythicists seem not to know), and there’s a very significant oral tradition circulation. As Graham Stanton pointed out, this is called a “high context” society.
Also, Paul happens to meet James, “the Brother of the Lord,” as well as Peter. Tough to have a brother if you’re fictional.
Marx didn’t exist either? Interesting . . . 🙂
Of course he did, I think you missed the point I was making.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek there, playing some buffoon Jesus myther.
Comments are closed.