Did Jesus actually exist as a historical figure?

[steeltoes]

Thanks outhouse. I thought that was what I said before jay cropped my post. One cannot accept his theory because of the obvious bias. And the omission of so many more references.

If you could point out the obvious bias that would be great. What is it that you cannot accept? So far I have reserved judgment, I haven't accepted or rejected any of it, especially his ultimate conclusion because one can't be so sure that there was no Jesus at all, but then again, he obviously has come to that conclusion. What is it that he is so wrong about, can you give specifics?

 

[outhouse]

the story since it did not exist in Paul's lifetime.

The story did. Not only that Mark is a compilation from written and oral traditions, that do go back to Pauls era.

 

[outhouse]

One cannot accept his theory because of the obvious bias. And the omission of so many more references.

Its not as much his bias as it is his three pillars don't stand up to what is known. And yes, what he doesn't say Is telling.

 

[steeltoes]

The story did. Not only that Mark is a compilation from written and oral traditions, that do go back to Pauls era.

Such as?

 

[Vishvavajra]

Paul makes reference to some very basic elements of the Jesus story: his institution of the Eucharist, his crucifixion, and his resurrection (whatever Paul means by that—it's pretty clear that it's not bodily resuscitation, given Paul's contempt for the idea in 1 Corinthians). Afterwards he is said to have appeared to various people, Paul included, which suggests that he appeared to them in visions as he did with Paul. That's about all the narrative information Paul gives.

Paul's account is probably a major source for the Gospel accounts, although they're also drawing on a number of other things too. Also, the Gospels differ from Paul in key ways, such as depicting an explicitly bodily resurrection, at least in the later Gospels. One can posit that it was meant to be metaphorical/mythic language, but it's clear that within a century after the Gospels' composition a lot of people were taking the resurrection completely literally. Paul would not have been pleased with that (or with the fact that by the 4th century the resurrection of the flesh was the sole orthodox view, thanks mostly to the influence of the Gospels).

 

[Vishvavajra]

Other than his ultimate conclusion, most everything he says is drawn from mainstream scholarship.

That's true. The problem is that he implies that it's not, that this is some kind of minority voice, and that scholarship on the subject is dominated by ideas that have been marginalized for about a century now. There's a subtle dishonesty at work there: by saying a lot of reasonable things while suggesting that mainstream Biblical scholarship doesn't accept those reasonable things, then drawing a conclusion that mainstream Biblical scholarship definitely does not accept, he makes it seem as if his conclusion isn't accepted because mainstream scholarship just doesn't accept reasonable ideas and is bound to defunct traditions etc. In fact the image he paints of Biblical scholarship is defunct, which is why you only ever see it in the mouths of fundamentalist evangelicals and apologists who masquerade as scholars.

 

[steeltoes]

Paul makes reference to some very basic elements of the Jesus story: his institution of the Eucharist, his crucifixion, and his resurrection (whatever Paul means by that—it's pretty clear that it's not bodily resuscitation, given Paul's contempt for the idea in 1 Corinthians). Afterwards he is said to have appeared to various people, Paul included, which suggests that he appeared to them in visions as he did with Paul. That's about all the narrative information Paul gives.

Paul's account is probably a major source for the Gospel accounts, although they're also drawing on a number of other things too. Also, the Gospels differ from Paul in key ways, such as depicting an explicitly bodily resurrection, at least in the later Gospels. One can posit that it was meant to be metaphorical/mythic language, but it's clear that within a century after the Gospels' composition a lot of people were taking the resurrection completely literally. Paul would not have been pleased with that (or with the fact that by the 4th century the resurrection of the flesh was the sole orthodox view, thanks mostly to the influence of the Gospels).

Yes, I can agree with that view. It could appear that the author of gMark brought Paul's Christ down to earth to be crucified.

 

[steeltoes]

That's true. The problem is that he implies that it's not, that this is some kind of minority voice, and that scholarship on the subject is dominated by ideas that have been marginalized for about a century now. There's a subtle dishonesty at work there: by saying a lot of reasonable things while suggesting that mainstream Biblical scholarship doesn't accept those reasonable things, then drawing a conclusion that mainstream Biblical scholarship definitely does not accept, he makes it seem as if his conclusion isn't accepted because mainstream scholarship just doesn't accept reasonable ideas and is bound to defunct traditions etc. In fact the image he paints of Biblical scholarship is defunct, which is why you only ever see it in the mouths of fundamentalist evangelicals and apologists who masquerade as scholars.

Yes, the politics of it all.

 

[steeltoes]

Can anyone provide a link to a cite that offers a concise theory as to what makes Jesus historical? I've read books by popular scholars on the topic but I thought something online for quick reference would be a good idea. Surely some of you have a go to website that you could recommend.

 

[outhouse]

It could appear that the author of gMark brought Paul's Christ down to earth to be crucified.

Pauls Jesus was always a human while alive. Because Paul deals with a dead Jesus in heaven, and theology generated after death, his Jesus now exist in Heaven.

 

[Awoon]

But heaven is every where not some isolated place.

 

[outhouse]

Can anyone provide a link to a cite that offers a concise theory as to what makes Jesus historical?

Sure, once you provide a replacement hypothesis that is credible, that explains the evidence we do have.


The only thing that explains ALL evidence with clarity is a martyred teacher who was crucified at Passover for his perceived selfless actions that generated mythology in theology.

No other explanation explains the evidence, and the best have tried and failed.

 

[outhouse]

But heaven is every where not some isolated place.

In this context heaven is in imagination or mythology. Were talking about credible historical work here, not any apologetic opinion.

If you have a historical opinion you think is valuable one way or the other feel free.

 

[Awoon]

In this context heaven is in imagination or mythology. Were talking about credible historical work here, not any apologetic opinion.

If you have a historical opinion you think is valuable one way or the other feel free.

Heaven is everywhere. Universe is everywhere. Same thing just different words.

 

[steeltoes]

Sure, once you provide a replacement hypothesis that is credible, that explains the evidence we do have.


The only thing that explains ALL evidence with clarity is a martyred teacher who was crucified at Passover for his perceived selfless actions that generated mythology in theology.

No other explanation explains the evidence, and the best have tried and failed.

ok

 

[outhouse]

Heaven is everywhere

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

It is also apologetic in nature and has no place in a historical discussion.

Same thing just different words

NO it is not the same thing.

One is unknown mythology by many accounts and the other exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Sure, once you provide a replacement hypothesis that is credible, that explains the evidence we do have.


The only thing that explains ALL evidence with clarity is a martyred teacher who was crucified at Passover for his perceived selfless actions that generated mythology in theology.

No other explanation explains the evidence, and the best have tried and failed.

There are many obvious and equally evidenced explanations. Your devotion is admirable, but not evidential.

 

[Awoon]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

It is also apologetic in nature and has no place in a historical discussion.






NO it is not the same thing.

One is unknown mythology by many accounts and the other exist.

Both the same. EVERYWHERE

 

[Skwim]

Great Info. Thankyou.
Now, let's get into this. I've only got ten minutes so I'll just take the first intro....ok? I'm not putting quotes around each section, I'll just make it as clear as I can....
Dionysus is God made flesh and is hailed as the 'Saviour of Mankind' and the 'Son of God' *
No mention of 'Son of God' in Mark. 'Son of man' was a regular expression.
His father is God and and his mother is a mortal virgin who afterwards becomes worshipped as the 'Mother of God' *
Nope........ not in Mark.
He is born in a cowshed * He drives out demons, turns water into wine and and raises people from the dead *
No cowsheds, No free wine, and no Lazarus rubbish in Mark
He rides triumphantly into town while people wave palms to honour him
Oh come on! Three huge festivals each year, bringing ion wealth for every ciotizen of Jerusalem, plus massive revenue for the authorities. They probably waved everybody into the city, and laid palm leaves down often. This just got adapted for Jesus. Quite clever, really. It probably happened!
The date revered by the first Christians as Jesus' birthday was originally that of Dionysus, also the three day Spring Festival of Dionysus celebrating his death and resurrection coincides with the Christian festival of Easter.
We don't know when Jesus was borne, and no doubt the Christian festival got reversed into the above dates. What has that got tio do with Jesus the carpenter?
The last Supper and the Eucharist are also parallel Dionysian rites.
I doubt that Jesus could afford to hire a premises for a supper. This could well be an exaggeration, but he p[robably did drink/eat with his followers one last time.
This is not common knowledge as the story was a closely guarded secret of the Pagan mysteries. Secondly the evidence of Christianity's pagan roots were systematically covered up the Roman Church."
Skwim........... please please please separate Christian goggledegook from Jesus the handyman and healer, who picked up JtB;'s mission and failed with it, all in about 11 months.

Waddayasay?

I have too much other stuff blow'n through my brain to get into any of this. But thanks for the invite.

 

[columbus]

I've read an opinion on another forum that says the same thing. Very interesting, but I wanna know who took over for Paul from the Jews to persecute the Church? Seems the Jews gave up and Rome took over killing the Disicples/Apostles.
Any one know?

I don't think Saul was specifically persecuting the Church. The Church didn't exist in an important way.
But there were plenty of people who would hunt out antiRoman operatives. Judea was rife with violent opposition to Roman occupation and the puppet Jewish government. The Romans were ruthlessly suppressing those terrorist/ freedom fighters.
I believe that is what the earliest Christians were.
Tkm