Jesus:Real or myth?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Read Galations, he mentions he met with Cephus( Peter) James the brother of the lord ( maybe not a disciple, but the successor to the Jesus movement and head of the Jerusalem church) and John. Also read to the book Acts. If you are going to debate on a subject than you should know your material, I think you've displayed some large gaps in your knowledge on this subject.

Ahh yes: the Mythicism-of-the-Gaps. :beach:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So? If he was referring to Jesus as a relative to a living person, he must've thought the relative believed he had a brother. In other words, Paul must've considered Jesus to have been real, even if he didn't meet him.

OK, so you believe that Paul's only possible reference to a contemporary Jesus is the one mention to a possible real brother. I would agree.

Maybe because that wasn't what concerned him.

Yeah, that's the only counterargument I've ever heard. Paul just didn't care enough about Jesus earthly life to ever mention it. For me, that's beyond belief, but each to his own.

If he didn't meet Jesus, he wouldn't have any details.

I'm confused. You're saying you don't believe that Jesus really went to Jerusalem and met Peter?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wonder why Paul never met Yeshua.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But that the Jewish Christians suddenly grow up quickly and strongly suggests that they had some leader that gave them encouragements before Paul got to the scene. That leader was not Paul and not Peter, James, or any of the other followers. They had to follow someone to be followers. That someone talked mystically out of thin air from a dream Paul had 10 years later? That wouldn't make sense. They had to have had some leader they followed.

Why do you believe that the Jewish Christians grew up quickly? My guess is that Christianity already existed well before 30 CE. Wouldn't that make more sense?

They didn't need a leader. They only needed the story of a messiah or godman, so it seems to me.

 

[steeltoes]

I'm trying to figure out any inconsistencies there, if 'Jesus' is used, then we might assume it's the same as the Gospels Jesus.

Why? Josephus refers to about 35 different Jesus'. Jesus was a common name. The confusion lies with gMark, some scholars have suggested that Mark combined two very different religions into one when he wrote his gospel story, he combined a Galilean Jesus movement with a Jerusalem Christ cult. Any historical Jesus may stem from the Jesus movement but Paul's Christ has no basis in history that anyone can be sure of.

 

[arcanum]

Ahh yes: the Mythicism-of-the-Gaps. :beach:

Yes, much like trying to spread a small fitted sheet over a much bigger bed, you just can't make it fit no matter how hard one tries.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why? Josephus refers to about 35 different Jesus'. Jesus was a common name. The confusion lies with gMark, some scholars have suggested that Mark combined two very different religions into one when he wrote his gospel story, he combined a Galilean Jesus movement with a Jerusalem Christ cult. Any historical Jesus may stem from the Jesus movement but Paul's Christ has no basis in history that anyone can be sure of.

But that still wouldn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't exist. So, could be just an interesting point, but not swaying the argument either way.

 

[steeltoes]

Read Galations, he mentions he met with Cephus( Peter) James the brother of the lord ( maybe not a disciple, but the successor to the Jesus movement and head of the Jerusalem church) and John. Also read to the book Acts. If you are going to debate on a subject than you should know your material, I think you've displayed some large gaps in your knowledge on this subject.

Where do any of the epistle writers mention disciples? The epistles predate the gospels and your problem is that you are reading the epistles through gospel colored lenses.

 

[steeltoes]

But that still wouldn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't exist. So, could be just an interesting point, but not swaying the argument either way.

I am not arguing that Jesus did not exist, if he did I would look to the Q sayings, but Paul's Christ should not be confused with any Jesus from Q. Paul's Christ is not known to have existed in Paul's recent past, he may or may not have existed at all. It's Paul's Christ that is very difficult to distinguish from myth.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am not arguing that Jesus did not exist, if he did I would look to the Q sayings, but Paul's Christ should not be confused with any Jesus from Q. Paul's Christ is not known to have existed in Paul's recent past, he may or may not have existed at all. It's Paul's Christ that is very difficult to distinguish from myth.

This might be the case, like I said, I don't have a Bible at hand right now, so it's a tad difficult to quickly find verses/

 

[steeltoes]

I wonder why Paul never met Yeshua.

Good question. According to Acts Paul was in Jerusalem in the year 42CE. According to Paul he visited Jerusalem twice, 14 years apart and this was his second visit. That places Paul in Jerusalem in the year 28CE for his first visit upon meeting Cephus and James, you'd think they would have introduced him.

 

[arcanum]

Where do any of the epistle writers mention disciples? The epistles predate the gospels and your problem is that you are reading the epistles through gospel colored lenses.

I just told you, Paul mentions it in Galatians where he meets with Peter, James and John. It is also mentioned in Acts where Paul interacts with James and Peter. Though James isn't really considered a disciple, he was much more than that, he took over the mantle of leader of the movement after the death of his brother. Were Peter and John not disciples?.

 

[steeltoes]

I just told you, Paul mentions it in Galatians where he meets with Peter, James and John. It is also mentioned in Acts where Paul interacts with James and Peter. Though James isn't really considered a disciple, he was much more than that, he took over the mantle of leader of the movement after the death of his brother. Were Peter and John not disciples?.

According to the gospels Jesus' brothers were non-believers.

Luke/Acts never names any of Jesus' siblings.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just told you, Paul mentions it in Galatians where he meets with Peter, James and John. It is also mentioned in Acts where Paul interacts with James and Peter. Though James isn't really considered a disciple, he was much more than that, he took over the mantle of leader of the movement after the death of his brother. Were Peter and John not disciples?.

I feel your pain.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jesus means savior.

Unless, of course, it doesn't.

 

[arcanum]

According to the gospels Jesus' brothers were non-believers.

Luke/Acts never names any of Jesus' siblings.

Non believers in what? Ah the gospel of John reference, not only the the last gospel to have been written and therefore the least reliable, but also the most different in character. But still it may be true that they didn't believe in his messiahship during his lifetime or in the early part of his ministry, but his brother James did go on to take over the leadership role and become leader of the Jerusalem church and his other brother Jude has a book in the NT, supposed brother anyways.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, that's the only counterargument I've ever heard. Paul just didn't care enough about Jesus earthly life to ever mention it. For me, that's beyond belief, but each to his own.

My personal theory is that the Jesus-cult started before Paul got to the scene. Jesus was martyred, and the followers tried to rationalize how their savior could have been killed. They're upset and keep on preaching his message and claim that he's gone to God. Our special prophet now is with God and there you have it you evil pharisees! Anyway, Paul enters the scene, start to spin the whole thing a bit more. He's not just dead. He's spiritually resurrected and the son of God, etc. The new Paul-cult gets even stronger because of the mixed religious package that is interesting for the Roman population as well, not just Jews.

It was a golden moment for Paul. He could start his own religious cult, based on some truth, able to refer to a real person who was dead, and repackage it in a "Roman" way.

I'm confused. You're saying you don't believe that Jesus really went to Jerusalem and met Peter?

Huh? Jesus or Paul?

I think it's very possible that Paul went to Jerusalem, yes. Met with Peter. I think he had some conflict with him too, didn't he? Paul''s Jesus wasn't the same as Jerusalem Jesus.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why do you believe that the Jewish Christians grew up quickly? My guess is that Christianity already existed well before 30 CE. Wouldn't that make more sense?

Ok. Sure. I can go for that.

What I meant is that a cult like that wouldn't have a chance in hell to grow at all if it was just based on someone's dreams about someone else.

The whole scenario plays better if the first cult leader of the Jesus-cult was a person who was believed to be Jesus (not the miracle Jesus, but a a person, leader, speaker Jesus).

They didn't need a leader. They only needed the story of a messiah or godman, so it seems to me.

Uhm... that's extremely unusual to get a following unless you have some kind of leader that spearheads the idea of the imagined person. It wasn't Paul since he came in later. So if it wasn't Jesus pointing to God and a new message, then it was Mr. X who isn't named anywhere talking about Jesus. We should have references to this Mr. X and we don't. I believe Jesus is the "patient zero" in the vector, not "Anonymous Mr. X".

 

[Ouroboros]

Why? Josephus refers to about 35 different Jesus'. Jesus was a common name. The confusion lies with gMark, some scholars have suggested that Mark combined two very different religions into one when he wrote his gospel story, he combined a Galilean Jesus movement with a Jerusalem Christ cult. Any historical Jesus may stem from the Jesus movement but Paul's Christ has no basis in history that anyone can be sure of.

Then the question is rather, how many historical Jesus-es were there, not if there was none at all.

Is it really possible that the Galilean Jesus movement just invented a magical and invisible Jesus they all managed to believe in, without anyone leading them or doing the inventing? They all just had the same ideas about a "Jesus"? And at the same time, a cult in Jerusalem also springs up the same way. No one knows how or why, but all have an idea of the invisible Jesus that says new and different things about belief and God. Is that really possible? No religion has done that. If that's how it started, then that is a greater supernatural miracle than a supposed resurrection. (FYI, I don't believe in a physical resurrection, just so you know, we're on the same side there.)

What I'm saying is that if Josephus talked about several physical and historical Jesus-es, and all, or few, or one of them were the seed for beginning of the religion, then that's the "historical Jesus" or "Jesus-es" that we're looking for.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am not arguing that Jesus did not exist, if he did I would look to the Q sayings, but Paul's Christ should not be confused with any Jesus from Q. Paul's Christ is not known to have existed in Paul's recent past, he may or may not have existed at all. It's Paul's Christ that is very difficult to distinguish from myth.

Oh... Ok. I see where you're going.

Yes, There are different versions of Jesus. The early Jewish Jesus was much closer to the actual historical Jesus(es). Paul's Jesus was a new spin on it. The Gospels that were written later were in even more embellished. Different Jesus, but with a kernel of truth. Somewhere in the rubble and chaos of things, there are some few truths and references to a real person Jesus, but most of the is hidden by the extra stuff.