Why People Doubt Jesus Existed

[Quagmire]

Yeah for the majority.:clap

If you reject the opinion of the scholarly majority because you've studied the matter, given it your best understanding, and come up with a different conclusion that makes you a free thinker.

If you reject the majority opinion just because it's telling you something you'd rather not hear, that makes you something else.

 

[Oberon]

Again with these 'bandwagon" arguments, which prove nothing. LOL

No, once more the proof is in the arguments offered by the scholars in their scholarship (with which you are unfamiliar).

This a fundamental issue you seem to have regarding the bandwagon and appeal to authority fallacies. Yes, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true, nor is it true because some authority says so.

That isn't what we are dealing with here. This is a forum. Even a small, popular, non-academic book on the historical Jesus will occupy 100+ pages. The academic arguments about the historical Jesus are either very specific (dealing with one particular thing, like Vermes' article on Josephus' reference to Jesus) or the fill large volumes, often several volumes. Meier, for example, recently came out with the fourth several hundred page volume to his work on the historical Jesus (A Marginal Jew).

In other words, other than giving the basics for the reasons why Jesus' historicity is virtually unanimous among experts, the best thing to do is to appeal to the scholarship itself.

In fact, this is EXACTLY what scholarship is all about: appealing to past work in the area so you don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime you want to make a point. Read any article from any peer-reviewed journal, whether it is New Testament Studies, Geophysical Research Letters, Lingua, or whatever, and you will find it filled with references.

By your interpretation of "appealing to authority" all scholarship, including all branches of science, are fundamentally flawed. They all work by appealing to the arguments made by other experts. Those arguments which stand the test of time (e.g. the argument that neurons don't connect, but rather synapses have clefts, which was a big debate sometime ago and is now an accepted aspect of neural science) are the arguments which can be appealed to in order to build off of them. This is how our knowledge progresses.

Jesus research is no different. Unlike most aspects of most fields, however, when we deal with Jesus' historicity we are dealing with something different. For one thing, the critical inquiry began 200+ years ago. Unlike with a number of modern fields (e.g. computer science) that's a long time to establish arguments to test and build off of. More important, with all the thousands and thousands of experts, and millions of pages of scholarship, only a tiny minority in two centuries (and by that I mean about half a dozen experts) have found the evidence for Jesus' historicity unconvincing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

More important, with all the thousands and thousands of experts, and millions of pages of scholarship, only a tiny minority in two centuries (and by that I mean about half a dozen experts) have found the evidence for Jesus' historicity unconvincing.

I wonder how many of these experts changed their mind.

It seems to me like the disbelief that Jesus existed would come early in one's career (e.g., before one hones one's skills).

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

A group of 7 Rabbis were discussing and debating over whether they needed to build a Mikvah for ritual cleansing. Six of the seven said it would be to expensive and that the Temple had no funds to install one at this time and stated it wasn't necessary because in modern days everyone home had pools at home and they could cleans themselves in their pool if coming in contact with death and other ritual uses.
The one Rabbi demanded that it was still necessary so they went to vote on it and six stood their ground claiming no Mikvah while the one vited to build the Mikvah thus 6-1 tally when suddenly the six were striked down by a giant lightning bolt from the heavens which knocked their glasses off and singed their beards. When they brushed the dust off and got up slowly they said
OK 6 to 2 against the Mikvah majority rules.

Using the majority is right standard means Christians would be agreeing with Rome who was Majority, or Babylon who majority ruled. Is China's way of controlled abusive life correct because they have majority say?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Soferim 6:4

 

[Oberon]

Using the majority is right standard means Christians would be agreeing with Rome who was Majority, or Babylon who majority ruled. Is China's way of controlled abusive life correct because they have majority say?

Again, a complete misunderstanding of appealing to scholarship. First of all, there are many areas in different fields (NT studies included) where I do not agree with the majority. We aren't talking about a majority here, we are talking about virtual unanimity that has withstood the test of time and critical inquiry by thousands of diverse scholars.

Second, there is a difference between any majority and scholarly consensus. Scholarly consensus comes after lots of debate and critical scholarship have convinced most of those who are experts in a particular field. Again, consensus can be and has been wrong, but this is more than consensus and has laster for well over a century.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Soferim 6:4

That's what I live by. :yes:

 

[dogsgod]

If you reject the opinion of the scholarly majority because you've studied the matter, given it your best understanding, and come up with a different conclusion that makes you a free thinker.

If you reject the majority opinion just because it's telling you something you'd rather not hear, that makes you something else.

I have no dog in this fight. This is debate for debate sake, and for me it's all about contradictions. For example, I will go along with the idea that Paul met the brother of Jesus until I run into a contradiction. When Paul states that For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. and then no sooner says I met James, the brother of the Lord, I can't read that to mean a literal brother in lieu of what I just read a few lines prior. So until there is actual corroborating evidence that connects Paul with Jesus of Nazareth, I will remain sceptical because I can't formulate a belief that contains a contradiction and at the same time be true to myself. I can't know that the James in question is the brother of Jesus or not, so I'm not going to go ahead and believe that he is.

 

[Oberon]

I have no dog in this fight. This is debate for debate sake, and for me it's all about contradictions.

For example, I will go along with the idea that Paul met the brother of Jesus until I run into a contradiction. When Paul states that For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. and then no sooner says I met James, the brother of the Lord, I can't read that to mean a literal brother in lieu of what I just read a few lines prior.

Because you lack understanding of syntactic formulae for kin identification. We the formula X of Z or X the Y of Z throughout greek literature to identify people, in lieu of last names. Which is why your "contradiction" is not a contradiction at all. It is easy to use terms like "brethren" metaphorically. We are dealing with single lexemes used metaphorically. Happens all the time.

James, the brother of the Lord, is not a matter of a word used as a metaphor. It is a clear formula. The entire formula has a specific structure and syntax, which Paul never uses metaphorically. The same is true throughout greek literature. This is, actually, the exact same way Josephus identifies James (and many, many others). Hence, no contradiction.

When you show me how X.nom/acc/dat. the Y.same case of Z.gen. is used metaphorically, then you can talk about contradictions.

And your contribution REALLY falls apart with Josephus.

 

[dogsgod]

Because you lack understanding of syntactic formulae for kin identification. We the formula X of Z or X the Y of Z throughout greek literature to identify people, in lieu of last names. Which is why your "contradiction" is not a contradiction at all. It is easy to use terms like "brethren" metaphorically. We are dealing with single lexemes used metaphorically. Happens all the time.

James, the brother of the Lord, is not a matter of a word used as a metaphor. It is a clear formula. The entire formula has a specific structure and syntax, which Paul never uses metaphorically. The same is true throughout greek literature. This is, actually, the exact same way Josephus identifies James (and many, many others). Hence, no contradiction.

When you show me how X.nom/acc/dat. the Y.same case of Z.gen. is used metaphorically, then you can talk about contradictions.

an angel of the Lord, Acts12:7.

 

[Oberon]

an angel of the Lord, Acts12:7.

Clearly, you don't get it (whether deliberately or not I don't know).

Acts 12:7:

και ιδου ἄγγελος Κυρίου/ and behold [an] angel of the lord.

1) There is no kin indentification here.
2) This isn't a metaphor
3) You completely ignored the rules of the syntactic forumula, which is used to identify people by kin.

You have X.nom Y.gen.

You do not have X.nom the Y.nom of Z.gen.

You don't even have X.person Y.gen.person.


Nice try.

 

[Oberon]

So, as detailed above, we have a clear counter to dogsgods claim:

This is debate for debate sake, and for me it's all about contradictions.

James can't be Jesus' brother, because Paul uses brother metaphorically. However, not only does Josephus ALSO identifiy James as Jesus' brother, dogsgod's point of metaphor falls apart when one takes into account constructions (as detailed above).

Now, as I have explained this to dogsgod many times before, and I have yet to be confronted with a counter-example to a metaphorical use of kin identification, I find it hard to accept the claim:

I have no dog in this fight.

 

[dogsgod]

So, as detailed above, we have a clear counter to dogsgods claim:


James can't be Jesus' brother, because Paul uses brother metaphorically. However, not only does Josephus ALSO identifiy James as Jesus' brother, dogsgod's point of metaphor falls apart when one takes into account constructions (as detailed above).

Now, as I have explained this to dogsgod many times before, and I have yet to be confronted with a counter-example to a metaphorical use of kin identification, I find it hard to accept the claim:

I accept that as it is worded James is a brother of Jesus, the problem is that, as I pointed out, it contradicts Gal 1: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. That is where the contradiction is because it can't be both. I can accept what is written in the form that we have it, but I can't formulate a belief that what we have makes sense.

 

[fallingblood]

I accept that as it is worded James is a brother of Jesus, the problem is that, as I pointed out, it contradicts Gal 1: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. That is where the contradiction is because it can't be both. I can accept what is written in the form that we have it, but I can't formulate a belief that what we have makes sense.

This has been explained before though.

The thing with Paul is that he had no real authority. He was not a disciple, he had not even met Jesus (from what we know).

On the other had, we have Peter, who was a disciple (possibly even the head disciple), and James (the brother of Jesus). They both had a logical claim to authority of the Jesus movement.

So what did Paul need to do? He needed to form some type of authority for himself. That is why Gal 1 states what it does. However, this is not the only reference to Paul trying to prove that he had some authority given to him by Jesus (we can look at the so called vision he had of Jesus, Paul's conversion).

There is no contradiction. Also, why hold what Paul said now to be literal when you don't do so with the rest of what he says?

 

[Oberon]

I accept that as it is worded James is a brother of Jesus, the problem is that, as I pointed out, it contradicts Gal 1: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. That is where the contradiction is because it can't be both. I can accept what is written in the form that we have it, but I can't formulate a belief that what we have makes sense.

Where is the contradiction? Paul never says he was preached the gospel by Jesus' brother. Have you ever formally studied logic, in terms of agument validity (the conclusion must follow from the premises) and soundness (the premises and conclusion are true)?

Your contradiction is based on your assumptions.

Let us for a moment ignore the fact that, as I have frequently stated, Paul has every reason to deny receiving the gospel from other humans, even though he implicitly admits to have done so by spending 15 days "inquiring into" Peter. We shall assume that Paul is telling the truth that he did not receive the gospel from any person when he says: ουδε γαρ εγω παρα ανθρώπου παρέλαβον αυτό οὔτε εδιδάχθην, αλλα δι᾿ αποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστου/ but I did not receive it [the good news] from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelations of Jesus Christ.

Do we have a contradiction between this statement and James being Jesus' brother? No.

We only have such a contradiction when we ASSUME the following:

1) James, just by virtue of being Jesus' brother, was in the best or even a good position to receive the gospel of Jesus.
2) Paul felt he had to receive the gospel of Jesus from James.

If these premises were true, it would stand to reason that James can't actually be a literal brother, because if he was Paul would have received the gospel from him. But the gospel or good news isn't about how Jesus was growing up. It is concerned with his adult teachings. There is no indication anywhere that James was a major disciple (or even a minor one) during Jesus' life. In fact, the only evidence we have for Jesus' relationship with his family is that during his mission they DIDN'T follow him.

So once more, on the above alone, your "contradiction" doesn't exist. It is merely you refusing to see what is quite obvious.

 

[Oberon]

This is debate for debate sake, and for me it's all about contradictions.

Now that your alleged contradiction is plainly shown to be of your own imagination, let's look at a REAL contradiction in Paul: that he received the gospel only from revelation (i.e. he wasn't taught the Jesus tradition). There are several points of evidence which contradict this statement:

1) The fifteen days Paul spent with Peter inquiring into him.
2) The fact that Paul cites Jesus' teaching on divorce, and then goes on to distinguish it from his own teaching. Now, unless you believe that Jesus actually did reveal himself to Paul and ban divorce, and then Paul added to that, the only explanation is that someone related Jesus' teaching on divorce to Paul, and Paul, faced with a situation not addressed in the tradition, gave his own take.
3) Paul has every reason to downplay the importance of knowing the living Jesus and to claim authority by virtue of revelation. He was competing with people who actually DID know Jesus and were his disciples.

So, while the Gal. 1.12 does NOT contradict the idea that James was Jesus' brother, it is ITSELF contradicted by other points of evidence in Paul's letters. Yet you ignore these contradictions, and make one up which doesn't exist to explain away what would alone establish Jesus' historicity: someone who knew his brother personally and told us so.

Which again leads to a rejection of the claim:

I have no dog in this fight.

Hard to believe, when you claim to base your stance on contradictions, and then make ones up which aren't there to explain inconvenient data, and then ignore those contradictions which do exist in order further your preconceived notions.

 

[Quagmire]

I have no dog in this fight. This is debate for debate sake, and for me it's all about contradictions. For example, I will go along with the idea that Paul met the brother of Jesus until I run into a contradiction. When Paul states that For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. and then no sooner says I met James, the brother of the Lord, I can't read that to mean a literal brother in lieu of what I just read a few lines prior. So until there is actual corroborating evidence that connects Paul with Jesus of Nazareth, I will remain sceptical because I can't formulate a belief that contains a contradiction and at the same time be true to myself. I can't know that the James in question is the brother of Jesus or not, so I'm not going to go ahead and believe that he is.

Paul refers to the congregation as "brethren", ie., his brethren by virtue of their spiritual/religious relationship.

James is the only person he ever refers to as "the Lord's brother".

In the first case brethren is obviously a generic term with religious connotations.

The use of " the Lord's brother" is obviously something else since it's only ever used in connection with one person.

Add to that:

The only other place in any of the books of the NT where Jesus' brothers are named is in Matthew.

***Matthew 13:55 (New International Version) 55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?***

So we have 3 references; Paul in Galatians, the Gospel of Matthew, and Josephus in Antq. 20:9, all stating that Jesus had a brother named James.


Whether or not you choose to accept any of the above as historical the intention of Gal. 1:19 is undeniable, ie., this is supposed to be a reference to a blood relationship.

 

[dogsgod]

Where is the contradiction? Paul never says he was preached the gospel by Jesus' brother. Have you ever formally studied logic, in terms of agument validity (the conclusion must follow from the premises) and soundness (the premises and conclusion are true)?

Your contradiction is based on your assumptions.

Let us for a moment ignore the fact that, as I have frequently stated, Paul has every reason to deny receiving the gospel from other humans, even though he implicitly admits to have done so by spending 15 days "inquiring into" Peter. We shall assume that Paul is telling the truth that he did not receive the gospel from any person when he says: ουδε γαρ εγω παρα ανθρώπου παρέλαβον αυτό οὔτε εδιδάχθην, αλλα δι᾿ αποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστου/ but I did not receive it [the good news] from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelations of Jesus Christ.

Do we have a contradiction between this statement and James being Jesus' brother? No.

We only have such a contradiction when we ASSUME the following:

1) James, just by virtue of being Jesus' brother, was in the best or even a good position to receive the gospel of Jesus.
2) Paul felt he had to receive the gospel of Jesus from James.

If these premises were true, it would stand to reason that James can't actually be a literal brother, because if he was Paul would have received the gospel from him. But the gospel or good news isn't about how Jesus was growing up. It is concerned with his adult teachings. There is no indication anywhere that James was a major disciple (or even a minor one) during Jesus' life. In fact, the only evidence we have for Jesus' relationship with his family is that during his mission they DIDN'T follow him.

So once more, on the above alone, your "contradiction" doesn't exist. It is merely you refusing to see what is quite obvious.

Jesus of Nazareth was a man and Paul states that he did not receive his gospel from a man. He claimed that he received his gospel from revelations of a risen Christ, his saviour in heaven. That is consistent with there being no Q parables or verses found in the epistles, but inconsistent with meeting a brother of Jesus. If Paul spoke of a Jesus of Nazareth then one would expect him to be aware of his teachings, and not just a paltry opinion as it pertains to divorce which he rejects, but something meaningful. In fact, he attributes Jesus' core teaching, love your fellow man, to God, not Jesus.

As for Peter, that brings up another contradiction. Peter states that his and Peters apostleship is appointed by God, but the gospels claim that Peter was appointed by Jesus to a discipleship.

Gal: 6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[a] just as Peter had been to the Jews.[b] 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

The epistles don't mention disciples, not even Paul when disagreeing with them. One would think that Paul would have had to deal with that, but it never came up.

Gal: 11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus of Nazareth was a man and Paul states that he did not receive his gospel from a man. He claimed that he received his gospel from revelations of a risen Christ, his saviour in heaven. That is consistent with there being no Q parables or verses found in the epistles, but inconsistent with meeting a brother of Jesus. If Paul spoke of a Jesus of Nazareth then one would expect him to be aware of his teachings, and not just a paltry opinion as it pertains to divorce which he rejects, but something meaningful. In fact, he attributes Jesus' core teaching, love your fellow man, to God, not Jesus.

The risen Christ was not a man in the strictest sense of the word.

Lets look at this as it applies to a different figure. Julius Caesar, as we know, was fully human. There is no denying that. However, after his death, and his ascension, he was not considered human, but god. There is a transition after death.

When Jesus supposedly raises from the dead, he is no longer a man. At the point that he reveals himself to Paul, he has already ascended to heaven and thus become divine. It is this transition that no longer makes him a man.

Paul is not saying that Jesus was not a man. There is a distinct difference here.

Also, just thought I would mention that Gal. 11 is not definite. Meaning that there was more to the story than Paul lets on. You have to take the entire context of that verse, as well as what is said in Acts. If you do, you will see that there was Paul was not the winner in the spat of Gal. 11. If you are interested in more detail, I will gladly provide it; however, I just don't have much time right now to expand too much if it is not needed. Again, if it is though, do say and I will expand later on soon.

 

[Oberon]

Jesus of Nazareth was a man and Paul states that he did not receive his gospel from a man. He claimed that he received his gospel from revelations of a risen Christ, his saviour in heaven. That is consistent with there being no Q parables or verses found in the epistles, but inconsistent with meeting a brother of Jesus.

Wrong. Again your argument is invalid. This is only true if we assume that by meeting Jesus' brother he would have received the gospel from him. There is no evidence to support such an assumption.

If Paul spoke of a Jesus of Nazareth then one would expect him to be aware of his teachings, and not just a paltry opinion as it pertains to divorce which he rejects,

He doesn't reject it. Again you don't know what you are talking about.


And we don't know how much he knew, because he wasn't writing about Jesus, he was writing letters to specific communities about specific issues.


So in sum:

Your contradiction doesn't exist, because there is no contradiction between Paul knowing Jesus' brother and not receiving the gospel from him.

There is a contradiction in Paul not receiving the gospel from any man, as I pointed out earlier. But you ignore this contradiction, and make another one up.