To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[fallingblood]

Was this proto-Jesus executed? If so, what were the charges? Did this proto-Jesus have a predecessor like the Jesus of the Gospels?

Of course not, only god-men were crucified. In fact, all god-men are crucified, and they are all made up.

 

[Quagmire]

That isn't what I've proposed.

But I certainly agree that anything which I propose is up for examination. It's why I'm here and why I urge other debaters to address my points with evidence and argumentation.



I don't know where you've gotten the 200-year number.

Ah, sorry about that. Not sure where I got the 200 years from except that I'm fairly certain someone in one of these threads was making that argument in connection with the proto-Jesus theory recently.

Maybe I accidentally typed such a thing, but I can't remember doing it. Anyway, your argument in this message doesn't seem relevant to my position, since I don't think the proto-Jesus lived in 200 BCE. But I'll address it anyway.

The character behind Jesus may have lived 50 years before the stories began to arise about him, or he may have lived 300 years before. It doesn't matter to me. What matters is when the myths began to grow.

So you're saying that it's possible that at some point a church arose around the idea that some figure from previous Judean history (prior to the first cent.) had been the messiah, and that this church/sect/following developed and was established post-mortem by several decades if not genrations. It's possible, I suppose, but from what little I know about first century Judea and the cults and movements that arose there as a result of the messianic expectation of that period, what you're talking about would have been an anomaly.

All the Messianic movements from that time that we do have information about were centered around a living contemporary of that time.

Even then you would have to explain why Josephus, who wrote about quite a few of these Messianic movements, never mentions them or anything that resembles what you're describing.

If we're restricted here to speculating on hypothetical possibilities, something that would have been an anomaly would be the least probable.

And I think the Jerusalem Church could easily have begun to form itself around 0 CE. As I say, I'm not a student of the Jerusalem Church. If there's a reason it couldn't have existed then, someone will have to instruct me.

"Couldn't" is too absolute a term to be applying to any hypothetical scenario if we're talking about ancient history.

It "could" be that such a church existed, but since you're the one proposing it as an alternate solution to the much more widely accepted idea of the Jerusalem church and earliest Christianity, it would fall to you to demonstrate why you think it more probable.

As I say, I don't know anything about a 200-year-old sect.

The idea of a 200 year old sect would carry with it certain implications, but even if the church you're proposing was much younger than that, to an only slightly lesser extent everything I said in my last post would still apply.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ah, sorry about that. Not sure where I got the 200 years from except that I'm fairly certain someone in one of these threads was making that argument in connection with the proto-Jesus theory recently.

No big deal. Lots of theories out here.

So you're saying that it's possible that at some point a church arose around the idea that some figure from previous Judean history (prior to the first cent.) had been the messiah, and that this church/sect/following developed and was established post-mortem by several decades if not genrations. It's possible, I suppose, but from what little I know about first century Judea and the cults and movements that arose there as a result of the messianic expectation of that period, what you're talking about would have been an anomaly.

Yeah, I think that's why it finally worked. They took an applicant from so far back in history that no one could point to his pimples and other flaws.

Beowulf is much easier to build if the proto-Beowulf is long dead.

All the Messianic movements from that time that we do have information about were centered around a living contemporary of that time.

Yeah, I really think that was the genius of the Jesus creation.

Even then you would have to explain why Josephus, who wrote about quite a few of these Messianic movements, never mentions them or anything that resembles what you're describing.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me. Josephus never mentions the first-century church?

If we're restricted here to speculating on hypothetical possibilities, something that would have been an anomaly would be the least probable.

I disagree. No messiah ever worked before or after Jesus because they were all actual historical men. His success points to an anamoly, in my view.

"Couldn't" is too absolute a term to be applying to any hypothetical scenario if we're talking about ancient history.

I'm happy to hear you say that. I really don't understand the reaction I sometimes get for doubting the historical Jesus. It's not the same reaction I'd get for doubting the historical Robin Hood, so I conclude that we are not yet over Christianity, not even the Biblical scholars among us.

It "could" be that such a church existed, but since you're the one proposing it as an alternate solution to the much more widely accepted idea of the Jerusalem church and earliest Christianity, it would fall to you to demonstrate why you think it more probable.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm fine with a 30 CE church. I'm also fine with a 0 CE church or even a 20 BCE church.

And I'm not sure that I have to explain each and every aspect of early Christianity in order to continue owning my theory. My sense is that Paul's silence is overwhelming evidence, so powerful that I don't really need to go figuring out other details of it.

James, brother of Jesus, for example. That's the only bit of evidence which Jesus believers have ever given me which seems at all compelling, and I have not yet figured out how to explain it. All I know is that a single mention of James is not nearly enough to out-argue Paul's massive and complete silence. I still look for a James explanation, but I don't feel responsible for finding one. It's just my opinion. It's not like I'm out there writing a book which pushes my theory.

The idea of a 200 year old sect would carry with it certain implications, but even if the church you're proposing was much younger than that, to an only slightly lesser extent everything I said in my last post would still apply.

OK. But just to be clear, I agreed with Jay the first time he asked me if I believed in the Jerusalem Church as commonly accepted.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No big deal. Lots of theories out here.



Yeah, I think that's why it finally worked. They took an applicant from so far back in history that no one could point to his pimples and other flaws.

The thing is..in the gospels there are some quite embarrassing facts about Jesus that slipped in, like him being subordinate to John the baptist.

Yeah, I really think that was the genius of the Jesus creation.

So I get...all other messiah claimants like Judas of Galilee, Theudas and Simon bar Kokhba really existed but the genius of the Jesus movement is they managed to somehow start a messianic movement based on a messiah claimant who didn't really exist.

That isn't genius, that's stupidity.

I disagree. No messiah ever worked before or after Jesus because they were all actual historical men. His success points to an anamoly, in my view.

So because the jesus movement is sort of successful that must mean Jesus didn't exist. What kind of logic is that?

And I'm not sure that I have to explain each and every aspect of early Christianity in order to continue owning my theory. My sense is that Paul's silence is overwhelming evidence, so powerful that I don't really need to go figuring out other details of it.

Paul wasn't silent. Paul wasn't silent. Paul wasn't silent.

What part of Paul wasn't silent do you not understand?

James, brother of Jesus, for example. That's the only bit of evidence which Jesus believers have ever given me which seems at all compelling, and I have not yet figured out how to explain it. All I know is that a single mention of James is not nearly enough to out-argue Paul's massive and complete silence. I still look for a James explanation, but I don't feel responsible for finding one. It's just my opinion. It's not like I'm out there writing a book which pushes my theory.

Oh so because the evidence of James is compelling, you see fit to ignore it. Isn't that peachy.



OK. But just to be clear, I agreed with Jay the first time he asked me if I believed in the Jerusalem Church as commonly accepted.[/QUOTE]

 

[outhouse]

he is being spoon fed all this junk at a myther site

I follow his ever step, not a one even has a decentfight, not even Earl Doherty.


There main arguement is one from silence and to them Price is a god, even though his arguements are weak

 

[outhouse]

My sense is that Paul's silence is overwhelming evidence,

You do understand that statement is ignorant in so many ways to the knowledge at hand???

Jesus would not nor ever know a roman like paul. paul would have been jesus blood enemy.

jesus would have hated everything that paul stood for.


jesus was a hard working peasant jew, paul was a free roman. they were two opposites

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You do understand that statement is ignorant in so many ways to the knowledge at hand???

If I ever accuse you of ignorance, outhouse, please object. You are even welcome to refer to me as 'ill-mannered' if I were to treat you that way.

Jesus would not nor ever know a roman like paul.

Why do you continue to insist that Jesus and Paul didn't know each other? Do you also insist that the moon must be round?

No one has ever claimed that Paul knew Jesus... and yet you insist over and over again that Paul didn't know Jesus.

In my last message to you, I acknowledged that Paul never knew Jesus... and yet you insist that Paul never knew Jesus.

It is most curious to me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

he is being spoon fed all this junk at a myther site

I follow his ever step, not a one even has a decentfight, not even Earl Doherty.


There main arguement is one from silence and to them Price is a god, even though his arguements are weak

I have no idea whom you're discussing, outhouse, but for the record, I've never been to a 'myther' site in my life so far as I know. Nor have I ever watched that devilish movie which you and Cynthia are always talking about. I can't even remember its name right now.

And of course, I have no idea who 'Price' might be... or 'Earl Doherty'.

Maybe if you read fewer conspiracists and engaged more direct debate, you might come to a more defensible view of the historical Jesus?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That isn't genius, that's stupidity.

OK, Cynthia. If you'd ever like to discuss Paul's profound silence regarding the physical Jesus, please let me know.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

OK, Cynthia. If you'd ever like to discuss Paul's profound silence regarding the physical Jesus, please let me know.

He wasn't silent. When are you going to get that through your head?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

He wasn't silent. When are you going to get that through your head?

When and if you can ever provide evidence that Paul spoke of Jesus' earthly life, then I may begin to accept that Paul wasn't silent about Jesus.

So can you provide such evidence? What did Paul know about Jesus?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

When and if you can ever provide evidence that Paul spoke of Jesus' earthly life, then I may begin to accept that Paul wasn't silent about Jesus.

So can you provide such evidence? What did Paul know about Jesus?

In the epistles...


Paul knows Jesus prayed to God as "Abba"
Paul knows Jesus taught against divorce
Paul refers to Peter as Cephas, a nickname Jesus gave Peter
Paul acknowledges James as Jesus' brother
Paul knows about the Last Supper
Paul knows about Jesus being betrayed

...and much more. Seems that Paul had biographical information about Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

If I ever accuse you of ignorance, outhouse, please object. You are even welcome to refer to me as 'ill-mannered' if I were to treat you that way.

yet I admit im ignorant about subjects regarding jesus, while specializing in certain areas.

Why do you continue to insist that Jesus and Paul didn't know each other? Do you also insist that the moon must be round?

No one has ever claimed that Paul knew Jesus... and yet you insist over and over again that Paul didn't know Jesus.

In my last message to you, I acknowledged that Paul never knew Jesus... and yet you insist that Paul never knew Jesus.

It is most curious to me.

then the silence you claim on paul has no validity

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Paul knows Jesus prayed to God as "Abba"
Paul knows Jesus taught against divorce
Paul refers to Peter as Cephas, a nickname Jesus gave Peter
Paul acknowledges James as Jesus' brother
Paul knows about the Last Supper
Paul knows about Jesus being betrayed

I'm looking for any incident -- even one -- which Paul recounts from the life of Jesus.

Like the time he told a joke and made John snort wine through his nose.

Do you have anything like that? In all of Paul's writings, do you have a single incident such as that?

The Last Supper and the betrayal seem kinda close, but 1) I'd have to study exactly what Paul says and have someone explain the ancient words to me and 2) I assume that Q and maybe even Mark were already floating round in Paul's time, at least orally. The mythical Jesus was already being formed, and the broad (rather than specific) type of knowledge which Paul claimed -- that points to him knowing nothing about any details of a physical man's life.

If Paul had recounted some incident from the Last Supper -- especially an incident not contained in Mark -- that might start to sway me. Do you have anything like that?

Did Paul know anything about Jesus which couldn't have come from Q, in your opinion?

...and much more.

Well, if there actually is anything more, I hope it's good solid evidence rather than the kind of thing you've posted so far.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

yet I admit im ignorant about subjects regarding jesus, while specializing in certain areas.

Have I ever called you ignorant? I doubt it. I try my best for civil debate.

then the silence you claim on paul has no validity

Maybe you could try going back and reviewing my position. If you understood it, you would realize that there's nothing in it about Jesus and Paul actually meeting.

Not only that, but I have already explained to you why it has nothing to do with Jesus and Paul meeting... but you have ignored that explanation.

I'm not sure what else I can do to help you understand it.

 

[outhouse]

Have I ever called you ignorant? I doubt it. I try my best for civil debate.

saying you lack knowledge is civil.

Im ignorant as stated on many subjects.

I'm not sure what else I can do to help you understand it.

I know what your trying to get at. it really has no validity

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

saying you lack knowledge is civil.

Sure. But you didn't say that. What you did say was uncivil, in my opinion -- although I've had much worse from other Jesus-realers.

I know what your trying to get at. it really has no validity

No, you really have no idea what I think about the historical Jesus. You think it has something to do with that movie called Zeitsomething and that I give a flip about what some 'Jesus mythers' think about Jesus. You also seem to believe that I think Paul and Jesus must have been good buddies.

So forgive me if I don't consider too seriously your claim that my view has no validity. You would have to actually understand my view before I could take your opinion of it seriously.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In the epistles...
Paul knows Jesus prayed to God as "Abba"
Paul knows Jesus taught against divorce
Paul refers to Peter as Cephas, a nickname Jesus gave Peter
Paul acknowledges James as Jesus' brother
Paul knows about the Last Supper
Paul knows about Jesus being betrayed
...and much more. Seems that Paul had biographical information about Jesus.

How could Paul know Jesus taught against divorce when Jesus did NOT teach against divorce. Didn't Jesus give fornication as the exception for divorce?
-Matthew 19v9; 5v32

 

[CynthiaCypher]

How could Paul know Jesus taught against divorce when Jesus did NOT teach against divorce. Didn't Jesus give fornication as the exception for divorce?
-Matthew 19v9; 5v32

Ever read Mark 10? Oh wait...probably not.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

When and if you can ever provide evidence that Paul spoke of Jesus' earthly life, then I may begin to accept that Paul wasn't silent about Jesus.
So can you provide such evidence? What did Paul know about Jesus?

According to Paul he believed that ALL Scripture is inspired by God. -2Tim.3vs16,17

'ALL' would include the gospel according to Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Paul would have also been alive when John was alive.
So, Paul would know what they knew about Jesus besides Paul's own encounter with the heavenly resurrected Jesus.- Acts 26 vs15-18