To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[CynthiaCypher]

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

Excuse me...but what is this thread about again?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

Do you believe Mark chapter 10 is separate from Matthew, Luke and John ?

Just because Mark does not mention 'Scriptural divorce',
does that mean that Matthew did not mention Jesus' comments about divorce ?
Mark was addressing 'unscriptural divorce' due to a hardness of heart
[verse 5] not fornication.

Remember the Pharisees [verse 2], who Jesus was addressing, [Mark 10v2]
they were divorcing on frivolous grounds.
They were dealing treacherously with their wives.
-Malachi 3 vs14-17
Jesus was reminding them about God's original standard for marriage at Genesis 2v24. Original standard did not mean a permanent standard for all time because man's downfall into sin and imperfection changed that.
That is why Jesus allows fornication [porneia] as Scriptural grounds for divorce.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Do you believe Mark chapter 10 is separate from Matthew, Luke and John ?

Just because Mark does not mention 'Scriptural divorce',
does that mean that Matthew did not mention Jesus' comments about divorce ?
Mark was addressing 'unscriptural divorce' due to a hardness of heart
[verse 5] not fornication.

Remember the Pharisees [verse 2], who Jesus was addressing, [Mark 10v2]
they were divorcing on frivolous grounds.
They were dealing treacherously with their wives.
-Malachi 3 vs14-17
Jesus was reminding them about God's original standard for marriage at Genesis 2v24. Original standard did not mean a permanent standard for all time because man's downfall into sin and imperfection changed that.
That is why Jesus allows fornication [porneia] as Scriptural grounds for divorce.

What is this thread about again?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

What is the thread about again ?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What is the thread about again ?

I guess reading comprehension is no biggie for you, so I will explain. This thread is about Jesus myth theory. Quit trying to derail it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I doubt it. You think that Matthew and Luke were written while Paul was alive and were considered 'scripture' from the moment they were written?

In what year do you think Paul died?

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

That fact is the very foundation of my theory of an unhistorical Jesus.

It's why Paul's silence proves there was no Jesus in first-century Judea.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

Who is "they"?

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

You seem to be implying a specific intent here by a specific but unidentified group. Could you clarify on those two counts a bit?

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

What was? You seem to be missing the point I was making there, Again: if there were an extant cult or sect in first century Judea worshiping a recently deified historical figure rather than a living Messianic claimant, it would be an anomaly. That in itself would make it notable.

If they had been in existence from the very beginning of the first century, there are any number of historians who would have had opportunity and good reason to mention them. Yet nothing like this has ever shown up in any of the writings of Pliny, Philo, or (later) Josephus. Or anywhere else for that matter.

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

The closest Josephus comes to mentioning the Jerusalem church in any form is at the end of the Testimonium Flavianum where he says this:

" And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"

Which is pretty vague. Also should mention I have no idea whether or not Scholars consider that line one of the interpolations.

What I'm saying is that if there were a church such as what you're describing, an established Messianic sect/cult that had been in existence for something like a couple of generations longer, I don't understand how that could have escaped Josephus' notice.

Also remember that the TF deals with a specific time: it's set in a loosely chronological telling of events that took place in and around the time of Jesus' ministry. The mention he makes of a still existing "tribe of Christians" is a footnote.

If there had been the kind of church that you're proposing based on an earlier proto-Jesus, they would have had to have been already well established by this time.

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.

Of course his success is an anomaly, just as the movement that sprang up afterwards around him was an anomaly. My point is that any successful church or sect formed around the idea of an already dead and risen Messiah that was established prior to the time traditionally assigned to the emergence of the Jerusalem church would have been just as big and just as noticeable anomaly.

There's no way something like that could have existed in First Cent Judea for several decades or even several generations without someone noticing.

I'm happy to hear you say that.

But you should bear in mind that there's a pretty big difference between "could" and "did"..

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.

It doesn't matter where or when you place it, you would still need to demonstrate what led you to believe that it existed.

And I'm not sure that I have to explain each and every aspect of early Christianity in order to continue owning my theory.

You're not being asked to explain each and every detail. You're being asked to explain the basis for your own theory. I'm assuming there is one.

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's silence is evidence of a pre-established Jerusalem church based on the worship of a proto-Jesus? How so?

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.

We're not discussing why believers in the historical Jesus believe what they believe or why you don't believe what they believe.

We're discussing the reasons behind what you actually do believe.

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.

Well obviously if you believe that the first cent Jerusalem church was centered around anyone other than the traditionally recognized Jesus, then you don't believe in it as commonly accepted.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I doubt it. You think that Matthew and Luke were written while Paul was alive and were considered 'scripture' from the moment they were written?
In what year do you think Paul died?
That fact is the very foundation of my theory of an unhistorical Jesus.
It's why Paul's silence proves there was no Jesus in first-century Judea.

Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy while in prison in Rome [65 CE]
Paul implied his death was near. [2nd Tim. 4 vs6-8]
So, that could place Paul's death in Rome at the time of Nero.

Paul became an apostle to the nations after Jesus death and resurrection.
Paul did not write Matthew, Mark or Luke [Acts] but could have read them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We seem to have our wires entirely crossed, Quagmire. I've read your latest message three times through and still don't feel that I clearly understand whatever concerns you have about my position. Or even that you understand my position. Or I, yours. But I'll do my best to respond.

Who is "they"?

Whoever began to tell stories about the Godman Jesus. And those who continued to build the stories.

You seem to be implying a specific intent here by a specific but unidentified group. Could you clarify on those two counts a bit?

No, no specific group at first. I think they were just oral hero stories, told around campfires. But at some point, early church leaders and gospelers began to work with those stories. Once that happened, theological passions corrupted most every historical truth about the man, if there was indeed a man. You can see that with all the gospels which never made it into the canon. Obviously, there was fierce competition in the creation of Jesus. (Which is more evidence for a non-historical one, I think. They wouldn't have dared write such variant stuff about a man who had actually lived among them.)

What was? You seem to be missing the point I was making there, Again: if there were an extant cult or sect in first century Judea worshiping a recently deified historical figure rather than a living Messianic claimant, it would be an anomaly. That in itself would make it notable.

I think I'm still missing your point. You're saying that no writer ever wrote about a cult unless that cult was based on a living Messianic claimant? I've never heard that to be so. And how could you know that these sects had an actual living claimant?

But even if that's the case, I'd still have no problem with the early church being an anamoly. Even an unmentioned one. Maybe it was unmentioned for just that reason. No one took it seriously enough to mention it.

If they had been in existence from the very beginning of the first century, there are any number of historians who would have had opportunity and good reason to mention them. Yet nothing like this has ever shown up in any of the writings of Pliny, Philo, or (later) Josephus. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Maybe. And if Paul had known anything about the man Jesus, then he had good reason to mention him. Yet many folks here declare that Paul had no reason to mention Jesus. So maybe Pliny, Philo, etal, had no reason to mention the early church. Who knows. All we can do is make our best guesses.

What I'm saying is that if there were a church such as what you're describing, an established Messianic sect/cult that had been in existence for something like a couple of generations longer, I don't understand how that could have escaped Josephus' notice.

Are you saying that Josephus mentioned many other sects but not the Christian sect?

If so, maybe he did so because the others were based on physical men claiming to be the messiah. Wasn't Josephus Jewish? So maybe he ignored the Christians, based as they were on a godman. Who knows.

If there had been the kind of church that you're proposing based on an earlier proto-Jesus, they would have had to have been already well established by this time.

Why? What difference would it make if the church were based on a proto-Jesus or a current Jesus -- so far as the timing of the church?

My point is that any successful church or sect formed around the idea of an already dead and risen Messiah that was established prior to the time traditionally assigned to the emergence of the Jerusalem church would have been just as big and just as noticeable anomaly.

Why do you say 'successful'? You believe the early church was successful? I see no reason to believe it was big and noticeable.

And why do you say 'prior to the time assigned'? Why do you keep pushing the church earlier and ealier in time? I'm not sure I understand that.

Anyway, I suspect that many things happened in ancient times of which we have no accurate record. I'm not surprised by any holes in Josephus, that's for sure.

There's no way something like that could have existed in First Cent Judea for several decades or even several generations without someone noticing.

Yeah, I'm kinda lost. You think that 'no historical record' equals 'no one noticed'?

I certainly don't see things that way. Plus, the victors write history. Who knows what was written and destroyed before it reached us? All we can do is make our best guesses. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... and all that.

It doesn't matter where or when you place it, you would still need to demonstrate what led you to believe that it existed.

The Church in Jerusalem? Well, if it didn't exist, I guess the entire NT is bunk. I've just assumed they would have no reason to lie about James and Peter hanging out in Jerusalem.

But you're welcome to present your case. You believe there was no church in Jerusalem, even when there were such churches in Asia Minor -- to whom Paul was writing?

Can you state your belief about the early church? It will hep me get a fix on things.

You're not being asked to explain each and every detail. You're being asked to explain the basis for your own theory. I'm assuming there is one.

I've already explained the basis of my theory, but if you have specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

Paul's silence is evidence of a pre-established Jerusalem church based on the worship of a proto-Jesus? How so?

I'm sorry. I've got no idea what you are talking about. A pre-established Jerusalem church? What does that mean?

Paul's silence is definitely evidence for a proto-Jesus rather than an historical one, but I really don't understand whatever you are trying to say about the early church.

We're discussing the reasons behind what you actually do believe.

Ask away. I'm happy to answer any question if I can understand it.

Well obviously if you believe that the first cent Jerusalem church was centered around anyone other than the traditionally recognized Jesus, then you don't believe in it as commonly accepted.

As commonly accepted in time. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

My best guess is that none of the early church leaders believed in a recent historical Jesus, though. If they had, they would have conveyed info to Paul about Jesus' earthly life, and Paul's letters would have been full of details about it.

 

[Quagmire]

We seem to have our wires entirely crossed, Quagmire. I've read your latest message three times through and still don't feel that I clearly understand whatever concerns you have about my position.

The concerns I have is that you don't seem to be explaining it.

Or even that you understand my position.

Your position seems to be that you believe that Christianity was originally based on a character (or characters) from Judean history other than, and who lived prior to, the traditionally accepted Jesus of Nazareth, and around which a God-man mythos had already developed. You've suggested that Christianity as we know it began as a continuation of an already existent religion based on the a fore mentioned figure or figures.

Correct? And if not, please clarify.

Or I, yours.

I haven't offered a position one way or the other. Why would you feel you need to know what mine is in order to explain yours?

But I'll do my best to respond.



Whoever began to tell stories about the Godman Jesus. And those who continued to build the stories.

That's what I'm asking: even if we accept for the sake of argument that there were stories or an already extant mythos involving a character from pre-1st Century Jewish history, we would still have to explain, or at least indulge in a little speculation about, how these stories were spread and by whom in order to build some sort of feasible scenario to base your theory around.

No, no specific group at first. I think they were just oral hero stories, told around campfires.

Ok good. Now we're at least trying to hypothetically re-create the processes by which these stories might have been circulated to a point where they could finally be incorporated into something resembling early Christianity.

But there are several problems with this scenario. One: the people of Second Temple Judea took their religious life very seriously. The idea of the Messiah was a particularly important issue for them.

If there were any stories or rumors circulating in connection with any historical figure indicating or proposing that this character may have been the Messiah, it's extremely unlikely that any of these people would have taken as casual an interest in the idea as you're suggesting here.

Considering how important the concept of the Messiah was to the people of Second Temple Judea, if there were such rumors circulating the typical reactions you could expect would be devotion by the people who accepted the idea as opposed to antagonistic rejection by the people who didn't.

That being the case, if there actually were such a belief or beliefs circulating prior to the second quarter of the first century, it stand to follow that the people holding those beliefs would have split from orthodox Judaism and established their own sect.

The idea of anyone from that time and place telling stories such as the ones you're proposing just to amuse themselves is pretty much out of the question.

Secondly: there are no Messianic movements reported in the first quarter of the first century anywhere in Judea or Galilee.

3rd: by "around the campfire", I almost get the impression that you believe that the people of Judea of that period were largely still semi-nomadic herdsmen. that wasn't the case. There were still shepherds and other herdsmen in the more rural districts of course, but we're talking about a church established in Jerusalem; a huge city for it's time and a center for world trade and commerce.

 

[Quagmire]

But at some point, early church leaders and gospelers began to work with those stories. Once that happened, theological passions corrupted most every historical truth about the man, if there was indeed a man. You can see that with all the gospels which never made it into the canon.

Wait, now you're saying that there may actually have been a Jesus of Nazareth in the first cent, and this he may actually have been the centrals figure of what came to be Christianity, but that his history has been obscured by the myths attached to him?

If so, congrats. This is exactly what most people who believe in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth (and everyone who you've been arguing with in these threads) believes. You basically just tore up your Jesus Myth Theorist membership card.

Obviously, there was fierce competition in the creation of Jesus. (Which is more evidence for a non-historical one, I think. They wouldn't have dared write such variant stuff about a man who had actually lived among them.)I think I'm still missing your point. You're saying that no writer ever wrote about a cult unless that cult was based on a living Messianic claimant?

I'm sorry. This is so far from what I actually was saying that I don't even know how to, address it.

I've never heard that to be so. And how could you know that these sects had an actual living claimant?

I'm just telling you what Josephus wrote about them.

But even if that's the case, I'd still have no problem with the early church being an anamoly. Even an unmentioned one. Maybe it was unmentioned for just that reason. No one took it seriously enough to mention it.

As I explained in my last post, that's a pretty unlikely scenario.

Maybe. And if Paul had known anything about the man Jesus, then he had good reason to mention him. Yet many folks here declare that Paul had no reason to mention Jesus. So maybe Pliny, Philo, etal, had no reason to mention the early church.

Difference being that Paul was writing letters to people who already accepted the physical existence of Jesus. He would have no reason to try and convince anyone, or even mention anything about him that didn't have any bearing on the intent of the letter itself.

On the other hand, it's the job of historians and social commentators to record details and facts about whatever subject they're dealing with. So yes, anyone like that who was dealing with first century Judea would have had every reason to mention them.

Who knows. All we can do is make our best guesses.

See, that's exactly what I'm trying to get you to understand: all you're doing is guessing about any of this. :yes:

You have a right to do that of course, but a position based on a guess isn't really worth introducing into a debate because there's nowhere to go with it:

exp: ---"I believe X=YZ x 53"

"Oh, well, could you explain what X,Y, and Z are meant to represent and then demonstrate the math you're using to come to your conclusion?"

----"No, I actually can't. I was just guessing".

See what I mean? At that point, there's nothing to debate or defend. the conversation is basically over.

Are you saying that Josephus mentioned many other sects but not the Christian sect?

I'm saying Josephus never mentioned any sect along the lines that you're describing. I actually showed you what Josephus had to say about the Christian sect a cpl of posts ago.

If so, maybe he did so because the others were based on physical men claiming to be the messiah. Wasn't Josephus Jewish? So maybe he ignored the Christians, based as they were on a godman. Who knows.



Why? What difference would it make if the church were based on a proto-Jesus or a current Jesus -- so far as the timing of the church?



Why do you say 'successful'? You believe the early church was successful? I see no reason to believe it was big and noticeable.

And why do you say 'prior to the time assigned'? Why do you keep pushing the church earlier and ealier in time? I'm not sure I understand that.

Anyway, I suspect that many things happened in ancient times of which we have no accurate record. I'm not surprised by any holes in Josephus, that's for sure.



Yeah, I'm kinda lost. You think that 'no historical record' equals 'no one noticed'?

I certainly don't see things that way. Plus, the victors write history. Who knows what was written and destroyed before it reached us? All we can do is make our best guesses. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... and all that.



The Church in Jerusalem? Well, if it didn't exist, I guess the entire NT is bunk. I've just assumed they would have no reason to lie about James and Peter hanging out in Jerusalem.

But you're welcome to present your case. You believe there was no church in Jerusalem, even when there were such churches in Asia Minor -- to whom Paul was writing?

Can you state your belief about the early church? It will hep me get a fix on things.



I've already explained the basis of my theory, but if you have specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them.



I'm sorry. I've got no idea what you are talking about. A pre-established Jerusalem church? What does that mean?

Paul's silence is definitely evidence for a proto-Jesus rather than an historical one, but I really don't understand whatever you are trying to say about the early church.



Ask away. I'm happy to answer any question if I can understand it.



As commonly accepted in time. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

My best guess is that none of the early church leaders believed in a recent historical Jesus, though. If they had, they would have conveyed info to Paul about Jesus' earthly life, and Paul's letters would have been full of details about it.

Listen: this is getting way way too convoluted.

Instead of jumping back and forth between an infinite number of vaguely related topics, how about we deal with the one we started out with:

You proposed that earliest Christianity is based on a proto-Jesus that existed prior to the time of the traditional Jesus.

To make the question as simple as possible: what led you to believe this?

 

[Quagmire]

If so, maybe he did so because the others were based on physical men claiming to be the messiah. Wasn't Josephus Jewish? So maybe he ignored the Christians, based as they were on a godman. Who knows.

He didn't ignore them.

Why? What difference would it make if the church were based on a proto-Jesus or a current Jesus -- so far as the timing of the church?

Already explained.

Why do you say 'successful'?

"Successful" as in "hadn't gone extinct yet". In order for their ideology to have been incorporated into a subsequent religion, it stands to reason that that ideology and by extension some of it's adherents would still have to have been in existence.

You believe the early church was successful? I see no reason to believe it was big and noticeable.

I never said big, and I already explained why a church like your describing would have been noticeable regardless of it's size.

And why do you say 'prior to the time assigned'? Why do you keep pushing the church earlier and ealier in time? I'm not sure I understand that.

Because this is exactly what you were proposing at the beginning of this discussion: ie., that Christianity was originally based on a pre-existing ideology or actual church based on an historical figure that existed prior to the time of the traditional Jesus.

Anyway, I suspect that many things happened in ancient times of which we have no accurate record. I'm not surprised by any holes in Josephus, that's for sure.

Which is no excuse for assuming that something actually did exist.

I mean, it's as if you're saying: this church and/or ideology probably existed and if we don't have any records to attest to that, oh well, there are lots of things we don't have any records for.

Yeah, I'm kinda lost. You think that 'no historical record' equals 'no one noticed'?

I'm saying that no one who was in the habit of recording these things noticed. I would think that much is self-implied.

I certainly don't see things that way. Plus, the victors write history. Who knows what was written and destroyed before it reached us? All we can do is make our best guesses.

i'm trying to get you to explain why you even consider your position a good guess. Or what, if anything, you're basing your guesses on

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... and all that.

It isn't proof of existence either.

The Church in Jerusalem?

No, a church or ideology based on your proto-Jesus.

Well, if it didn't exist, I guess the entire NT is bunk. I've just assumed they would have no reason to lie about James and Peter hanging out in Jerusalem.

But you're welcome to present your case. You believe there was no church in Jerusalem, even when there were such churches in Asia Minor -- to whom Paul was writing?

I'm curious as to why you're doing what you're doing here. The fact is I never actually presented a position, I've merely been trying to get you to explain yours.

I really don't believe that you're so unintelligent that you could have possibly misread my posts badly enough to have gotten the impression that I was actually trying to say what you have me saying in your quote, so I'm actually baffled as to why you would post something like that.

Can you state your belief about the early church? It will hep me get a fix on things.

Why? Again: why would you have to know what I think in order to explain what you think?

I've already explained the basis of my theory, but if you have specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

OK: why do you choose the proto-Jesus theory over the traditional Jesus theory?

Specifically, what are the exact reasons that you find the latter theory more plausible, what evidence do you believe there is in favor of it, and how and why in your opinion did the alleged stories surrounding this person find there way into Christianity.

Feel free to speculate about that last question. I'm not asking for anything verifiable there, just a feasible scenario.

I'm sorry. I've got no idea what you are talking about. A pre-established Jerusalem church? What does that mean?

Nevermind. I think we already have more than enough to deal with as it is. We can always come back to that.

Paul's silence is definitely evidence for a proto-Jesus rather than an historical one, but I really don't understand whatever you are trying to say about the early church.



Ask away. I'm happy to answer any question if I can understand it.



As commonly accepted in time. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

My best guess is that none of the early church leaders believed in a recent historical Jesus, though. If they had, they would have conveyed info to Paul about Jesus' earthly life, and Paul's letters would have been full of details about it.

again: you're theory and pretty much every element of it is based on a guess and very little (if anything) else. And as far as what your basing your guesses on, well, we can only guess. This is what I was trying to get you to admit. :yes:

Thank you.

 

[Tiberius]

So Jesus' life and death wasn't documented?

I've also got documentation of the lives of Harry Potter, Frodo Baggins and Anakin Skywalker.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Listen: this is getting way way too convoluted.

Instead of jumping back and forth between an infinite number of vaguely related topics, how about we deal with the one we started out with:

You proposed that earliest Christianity is based on a proto-Jesus that existed prior to the time of the traditional Jesus.

To make the question as simple as possible: what led you to believe this?

I agree that it's way too convoluted. Although I explained at the very beginning what led me to my belief, I'd do it again. First, Paul's silence. He supposedly knew all about the physical Jesus from meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem. Yet he never mentions anything about Jesus's physical life in all his writing. Indeed, he seems to believe in a godman Jesus.

Also, I believe the gospels were probably written as fiction and later accepted as fact. I point to the synoptics. I've never seen that kind of language tracking except in rewrites of fiction. I also point to the huge number and diversity of gospels. It seems like there was a cottage industry of writing history/theology about the godman Jesus.

There are various other reasons, like humanity's need for hero-worship and therefore hero-creation, but this is the foundation of my belief.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree that it's way too convoluted. Although I explained at the very beginning what led me to my belief, I'd do it again. First, Paul's silence. He supposedly knew all about the physical Jesus from meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem. Yet he never mentions anything about Jesus's physical life in all his writing. Indeed, he seems to believe in a godman Jesus.

Why did he "supposedly knew all about the physical Jesus from meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem?" Why would any of what he might have learned find it's way into his works and where?

Also, I believe the gospels were probably written as fiction and later accepted as fact.

It is a baseless, idiosyncratic self-serving belief. Have you ever read anything like Schnelle or did you suck this out of your thumb and embrace it based on uninformed intuition?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hitting a couple of high points:

But there are several problems with this scenario. One: the people of Second Temple Judea took their religious life very seriously. The idea of the Messiah was a particularly important issue for them. If there were any stories or rumors circulating in connection with any historical figure indicating or proposing that this character may have been the Messiah, it's extremely unlikely that any of these people would have taken as casual an interest in the idea as you're suggesting here.

I really don't know what you're talking about. I guess you assume that we have a complete record of most everything which happened in first-century Judea? That's my best guess as to what you're arguing. If I'm right, I disagree. My understanding is that the Jews of that time never mentioned either the historical Jesus or the proto-Jesus.

That being the case, if there actually were such a belief or beliefs circulating prior to the second quarter of the first century, it stand to follow that the people holding those beliefs would have split from orthodox Judaism and established their own sect.

You seem to have a lot more confidence about what we can know about ancient history than I do. I think it could easily take 50 years for a sect to formally break away. I think it could have been a vague theological hodgepodge until some stiff-lipped Jewish leader finally got fed up and made the messiah-claimants go down and register the name 'Christian' and stop worshipping with them in the temple.

The idea of anyone from that time and place telling stories such as the ones you're proposing just to amuse themselves is pretty much out of the question.

Really? So you think that the Beowulf stories were not told to amuse people? If not, why not? Why were they told?

Secondly: there are no Messianic movements reported in the first quarter of the first century anywhere in Judea or Galilee.

Maybe we haven't found all the newspapers and magazines yet. Seriously, I wouldn't expect any such reports. There are no reports of a physical Jesus. Why would there be reports of proto-Jesus stories?

3rd: by "around the campfire", I almost get the impression that you believe that the people of Judea of that period were largely still semi-nomadic herdsmen. that wasn't the case. There were still shepherds and other herdsmen in the more rural districts of course, but we're talking about a church established in Jerusalem; a huge city for it's time and a center for world trade and commerce.

It's interesting. As I was writing 'around the campfire' I stopped and thought to myself, "Well, let's see how Quagmire deals with my metaphorical language. Is he the sort of person with whom I must write with extreme precision, or is he a guy who is laid-back and will accept my shorthand talk?"

I'm pretty clear on the nature of first-century Jerusalem. Not an expert, but not ignorant.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Wait, now you're saying that there may actually have been a Jesus of Nazareth in the first cent, and this he may actually have been the centrals figure of what came to be Christianity, but that his history has been obscured by the myths attached to him?

Sorry. I have no idea how you've come to that conclusion. On the other hand, of course there 'may' have been such a man. Who knows.

If so, congrats. This is exactly what most people who believe in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth (and everyone who you've been arguing with in these threads) believes. You basically just tore up your Jesus Myth Theorist membership card.

No, they aren't arguing that at all. Instead, they are arguing that there definitely was such a man.

I'm sorry. This is so far from what I actually was saying that I don't even know how to, address it.

Yes, that's how I've felt about many of your statements and questions. Like your backquote at the top of this message, for example.

Difference being that Paul was writing letters to people who already accepted the physical existence of Jesus.

That's your assumption. I believe you're incorrect.

He would have no reason to try and convince anyone, or even mention anything about him that didn't have any bearing on the intent of the letter itself.

It's got nothing to do with convincing. Why would he convince them of a physical man when he himself didn't even believe in a physical man?

And if you think that Paul would never even mention details from the life of his lord, then that's what you think. I believe you're very much mistaken. Frankly, I find it flabbergasting that anyone would seriously argue such a position. Paul worshipped Jesus. Paul knew all about Jesus' physical life. Paul wrote many letters to churches about Jesus. But Paul never once mentioned any detail from the life of Jesus.

That is so far beyond my understanding of human behavior that I find it absurd on its face. But maybe that's just me.

On the other hand, it's the job of historians and social commentators to record details and facts about whatever subject they're dealing with. So yes, anyone like that who was dealing with first century Judea would have had every reason to mention them.

Which writers -- mature men in 20-40 CE -- mentioned the physical Jesus?

If none, why would they ignore Jesus but write about a little sect of godmen worshippers?

See, that's exactly what I'm trying to get you to understand: all you're doing is guessing about any of this. :yes:

That's so interesting. You're trying to get me to understand a thing which I have understood and fiercely taught for decades? Maybe that's why we aren't communicating very well, Quagmire.

You have a right to do that of course, but a position based on a guess isn't really worth introducing into a debate because there's nowhere to go with it:

Umm.... what else are there but guesses? You think that historians somehow know 'the truth', rather than simply guessing at the truth?

You'll have to explain what you mean. I certainly don't understand it.

See what I mean? At that point, there's nothing to debate or defend. the conversation is basically over.

Oh. So you think that 'best guess' means 'wild conclusion plucked from nothing and based on no evidence and therefore unarguable'?

Yes, we speak very different languages indeed.

 

[michaelsherlock]

Why did he "supposedly knew all about the physical Jesus from meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem?" Why would any of what he might have learned find it's way into his works and where?

It is a baseless, idiosyncratic self-serving belief. Have you ever read anything like Schnelle or did you suck this out of your thumb and embrace it based on uninformed intuition?

Actually, it is inline with some modern scholarship; i.e Dr Robert Price, Dr Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and a few others who are looking at this issue in this way. Also, look at Prof. Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities to give you an idea of how early Christianity looked. It is interesting stuff!

But I agree with you as far as not beleiving it all, for the subject matter itself, 'Jesus Christ' could possibly be fictitious so what is the point about believing this or that about a possibly fictitional person_? It is a litte like getting into a heated argument about Dr Spok's powers and their origins.

 

[Quagmire]

Sorry. I have no idea how you've come to that conclusion. On the other hand, of course there 'may' have been such a man. Who knows.

Me: "So now you're saying he might have existed?"

You: "No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying there may have been such a man".


Hooooooookay......(?)

No, they aren't arguing that at all. Instead, they are arguing that there definitely was such a man.

Posts like this make me believe in the Multiple Universe theory.

You really haven't been reading any of the posts you've been responding to, have you.

Yes, that's how I've felt about many of your statements and questions. Like your backquote at the top of this message, for example.

that's because you haven't really examined your own position. that being the case, when someone examines it for you and reports back to you, whatever they have to say about it sounds foreign to you.

That's your assumption.

It isn't an assumption, it's one of the most obvious aspects of Paul's writings: ie., that they were letters (that's what "epistle" means) addressed to other people. and since the people he was writing to were members of the church, it's pretty likely that they would already know as much about the history---actual and mythical---attached to Jesus as Paul did.

For Paul to just start reciting details of Jesus' life in one of these letters would basically be the same as someone in this forum PMing you and saying "Hi. This is RF. We have forums here. Sometimes we have debates here about religion. Oh and there are other members. Here are some of their names...."

I believe you're incorrect.

And you believe this why?

I've just explained the reasons behind the view I take of Paul's epistles.

How about explaining yours?

It's got nothing to do with convincing. Why would he convince them of a physical man when he himself didn't even believe in a physical man?

This is just the erroneous conclusion you've come to based on your faulty understanding of the epistles overall.

And if you think that Paul would never even mention details from the life of his lord, then that's what you think.

And I (and other people) have explained why.

I believe you're very much mistaken.

This is just a belief based on ....(?)

Frankly, I find it flabbergasting that anyone would seriously argue such a position.

Because....(?)

Paul worshipped Jesus. Paul knew all about Jesus' physical life.

And so did the people he was writing the epistles to.

Paul wrote many letters to churches about Jesus.

4 that we know of.

But Paul never once mentioned any detail from the life of Jesus.

Aside from that fact that he actually did (which is one more thing that's been explained to you), most people don't include biographies---especially unnecessary ones---in their letters.

That is so far beyond my understanding

Apparently so.

of human behavior that I find it absurd on its face.

Which is as far as you've looked.

But maybe that's just me.

Lets go with that.

Which writers -- mature men in 20-40 CE -- mentioned the physical Jesus?

Josephus did.

If none, why would they ignore Jesus but write about a little sect of godmen worshipers?

Aside from Josephus, the other two I mentioned; Pliny and Philo, never dealt with the Messianic claimants or their movements. They did, however, write about any already established sects within Judaism of that period.

That's so interesting. You're trying to get me to understand a thing which I have understood and fiercely taught for decades?

You've understood and "fiercely taught" that your position is based on a guess or guesses for decades?

Maybe that's why we aren't communicating very well, Quagmire.

All I can do is transmit. I'm not responsible for the condition of the receiver.

Umm.... what else are there but guesses? You think that historians somehow know 'the truth', rather than simply guessing at the truth?

There's a big difference between an educated guess and a wild guess.

You'll have to explain what you mean. I certainly don't understand it.

Oh, OK, I'll try and explain then:

Most of the people who are taking the position that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person base their position on:

---the fact that there are 4 gospel accounts
---there are two references in Josephus
---there is a brief summary of his life in Acts.
---that there was an early church dedicated to him with a hierarchy comprised of people who are said to have actually known him
---there are references to his existence as a man in other epistles (aside from Paul's):

exp: 1 John 2:6
"Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

There's more that I'm missing I'm sure but what I'm saying is: here is at least some of the evidence that people who believe in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth usually base their position on.

Not saying this is irrefutable evidence, but it's at least enough to explain their position and there's plenty there to debate about and structure a discussion around.

On the other hand, if someone just responds to all that with something like "I disagree" or "I believe your mistaken" or "nuh-uh, t'aint so" or if someone, as you're doing here, tries to counter all that and justify their position by presenting a wild guess, or a guess based on a faulty understanding of one element of the argument along with a complete disregard of all the rest, there's no chance for anything resembling a legitimate debate there.

What I'm saying is that everyone else in here can (and has) gone to great lengths to explain their position and present their evidence. All I see you doing is smirking, closing your eyes, and shaking your head.

That isn't debating.

Oh. So you think that 'best guess' means 'wild conclusion plucked from nothing and based on no evidence and therefore unarguable'?

In your case it most obviously does. :yes:

Yes, we speak very different languages indeed.

Just one more denial sans explanation.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually, it is inline with some modern scholarship; i.e Dr Robert Price, Dr Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and a few others who are looking at this issue in this way. Also, look at Prof. Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities to give you an idea of how early Christianity looked. It is interesting stuff!

Dr. Price, Dr. Carrier, and Earl Doherty hardly show where modern scholarship is going. Earl Doherty is not a scholar. Carrier is a classicist, who has never published any scholarly articles on the subject. Price, also hasn't published any scholarly articles with his outlook. Why? Because the positions that they present are thoroughly debunked. It isn't modern scholarship. It is pseudo-scholarship.

As for Bart Ehrman, his book, Lost Christianities hardly has anything to do with this discussion. What it shows is only what Christianity later became.

But I agree with you as far as not beleiving it all, for the subject matter itself, 'Jesus Christ' could possibly be fictitious so what is the point about believing this or that about a possibly fictitional person_? It is a litte like getting into a heated argument about Dr Spok's powers and their origins.

Because there is no reason to believe that he is fictional, unless you have a blind desire to do so. And really, Abraham Lincoln could possibly be fictitious; however, that is highly unlikely.