Wisdom is one thing, simple knowledge is another. The passage in question is clearly saying that everything Paul preached was knowledge he did not obtain from any human source but rather from the spiritual Jesus Christ.
You can’t take such a straightforward insistence that he never learned any of it from any human being and that instead he learned all of it from his spiritual visions and twist it into some abstract notion of “communion with the Holy Spirit”. It just doesn’t wash. It doesn’t explain why Paul explicitly stated he learned none of if from human men, which is the key point of that passage. It says as plainly as possible that Paul never learned anything of any historical Jesus from anyone, and only had visions of a purely spiritual being.
True, but this does not exclude a living teacher. It stressing that spiritual knowledge and assurance comes from the spirit. Jesus teaches this same thing in the gospels to the apostles.
One interpretation of this passage is that Jesus meant divine revelation was the foundation of the church. As you know human Jesus promised the coming of the Holy Spirit to his followers and taught them after his resurrection.
The point being that even though Paul consistently stresses divine revelation as his {and others} source of knowledge it is still in keeping with the story of Jesus as a living teacher who was crucified, since living Jesus taught them to look to the Holy Spirit for knowledge.
Abstract notion? Odd choice of words considering the theories you’re promoting and the fact that we’re discussing something pretty damn abstract.
Of course it explains it. Paul is converted through divine revelation and believes he continues to receive divine revelation. To him, the real Jesus, the important Jesus, spiritual Jesus is still teaching. If Paul believes he is chosen as an apostle by God and Jesus and has direct access to them through the spirit he has no reason to dwell on historical Jesus or to ask any other apostles “what does this mean” since he has the same direct access they have to the divine source.
Add to that his rather frequent references to Christ crucified and raised from the dead, Christ as the seed of Abraham, born of a woman and other references it’s in keeping with Christ as a living teacher.
In a previous post you spoke of conformation bias. That seems to be what you and Doherty are doing when interpreting the scriptures. To clarify, I’m not saying you or he are wrong. I’m suggesting that your interpretations are one possibility and it isn’t nearly as clear as you and he seem to think. Other interpretations are just as valid. That indicates conformation bias to me.
I’ll state once more that I’m not advocating a living teaching Jesus. My approach is to look at the information and get a sense of what the possibilities are. My objection in this thread isn’t to the mythicists theory in general. It’s interesting and may be correct. My objection is to your rather heavy handed approach to the discussion and insisting an interesting theory is clearly correct and stronger than it actually is.
One other thing before I deal with Doherty.
You’ve insisted that the burden of proof is on those who believe in a living earthly teacher as the basis for the JC of the gospels. If someone states emphatically that Jesus really walked the earth then it is upon them to provide evidence to back it up. You came into this thread making such a declarative and emphatic statement about Jesus never existing. Since then you have backed off.
If someone states, as I do, that we don’t know if Jesus actually lived or not that’s a completely different type of statement and requires nothing except an examination of your argument to see if it’s compelling enough. It isn’t.
I read through quite a bit of “The Sound of Silence” and “Who was Jesus Christ” I wish I had time to read more but I read enough to form an opinion about Doherty’s style that seems to be reflected , in a more abrasive form, in ambushed
Here’s the main point of my criticism.
Doherty analyzes scriptural passages insisting they clearly indicate something that IMO is only one possible explanation. It happens to be the explanation that best fits his own thesis. There are numerous references in Paul’s writing that seem to indicate a living walking Jesus who was born of a woman as the seed of Abraham was crucified and rose again. Doherty and ambushed make the claim that this is in reference to Jesus on another spiritual plane. ambushed admits it isn’t clear and takes a careful reading to see this.
Why is it that the references they use to support their theory so obviously have the meaning they prefer but the passages that seem to challenge their theory take a careful reading? That smacks of conformation bias to me.
example
here Doherty makes a claim akin to mind reading 2000 years later. He claims to know how an apostle should or would respond and submits this as evidence. His writing is full of this kind of thinking.
as I’ve already pointed out, according to the gospels, Jesus of Nazareth taught the apostles to look for the spirit and divine revelation and confirmation and that the HS would be their guide after his death and resurrection. That being the case Doherty’s conclusion is suspect.
example
How is Doherty sure it isn’t the significance of the event that Paul is referring to? He is writing to Christians right? Wouldn’t that significance be easily inferred in such a reference written to Christians? Here Doherty uses a very strict literal translation because that’s the one that supports his theory. Once again, his writing is riddled with this kind of thing.
Where else do we find this kind of thinking where one verse must be interpreted literally while another is not? Ironic isn’t it?
That said, there are some interesting points to the mythicist’s arguments and I realize there is a lot more to look at and consider, but so far, nothing compelling or convincing. When someone’s writing so clearly reveals their own confirmation bias it’s suspect.
Why should we expect “credible legitimate historical evidence of his existence” when there is so little evidence of any individual from the era? I could be convinced of your argument by a list of people we do have evidence for, and what we know they did, and showing that Jesus fits well in that group.
Also,I may misunderstand your argument. You have the premises: 1) Jesus was notable for specified actions, 2) Notable people leave evidence. Then you argue that since he did not leave evidence, he must not have existed. But why conclude that when you could instead conclude that he did not do the notable actions? That is, how do you separate the cases of “Jesus did not exist” from “Jesus did not do notable actions”?
Because a “Jesus” that did not “do notable actions” isn’t the Jesus that religionists are considering, it doesn’t make any sense to talk about a Jesus that did nothing worth writing about.
Can you come up with any other person from that era that similar claims are made about for which there is the same lack of evidence?
That’s like the old saying “The Iliad was not written by Homer, but by someone else with the same name”. Is the “Jesus” we’re talking about the man who did the notable actions or the man who people claimed did the notable actions? Let’s call them “Jesus the Actor” and “Jesus the Nonactor” for clarity.
Assuming ambushed’s claim that most people who did such types of actions leave historical evidence is valid, his argument shows that “Jesus the Actor” did not exist. But it does not say much about “Jesus the Nonactor”.
In other words, I’m looking for falsification of a hypothesis like “There was a Jesus who didn’t do much beyond start a small cult; all the notable actions ascribed to him are later embellishments by them”.
I’m not making any claims. I’m asking ambushed to support his claim about people who leave historical evidence.
I don’t follow your reasoning. Look at the “nor was I taught it”. If there had been a living teacher, Paul would have learned from him/her and thus he could not say he learned nothing about Jesus from any living human. The only alternative is that there was a living teacher and Paul deliberately ignored that person and shut his ears when that person spoke, which would be quite a stupid assertion.
Since Matthew is obviously late and full to overflowing with myth and fiction and serious score-settling, you can’t take anything it says at face value. We’re not talking about Paul’s genuine epistles here, which were much earlier and didn’t include the kind of historical fictions we see in the Gospels.
However, in one sense we are talking about Paul – at least the author of Matthew is! You see, “Matthew” hated Paul and drastically preferred Simon Peter. Every time he/she/they got the chance, the author(s) of Matthew slapped Paul around and praised Peter instead. So what that author did was steal from Paul to pay Peter: He took Paul’s own purely spiritually-inspired visions and attributed them to Peter. Then “Mathew” smacked down Paul once more even more harshly by saying that Paul’s church didn’t count and that only Peter’s was the “true church”.
That’s why Matthew comes first in the Roman Catholic created Bible: So that readers see that very passage before encountering Luke’s pro-Paul Gospel.
That’s just an out-of-the-blue wild assertion without evidence that’s also directly contrary to all evidence. It is entirely non-credible. If you have clear, persuasive evidence of this, please bring it forward.
I was being polite. But if you insist, then strike “abstract” and replace it with “counter-evidentiary absurdity”.
The rest of your post is also blatant counter-evidentiary absurdity. The words of the NT simply cannot be twisted so recklessly and arbitrarily to say whatever nonsense you want them to say. You’re just making stuff up again and it needs to stop. You know nothing of biblical interpretation, that’s clear. You’re just reading the translated text and saying it means whatever the hell you want it to. I don’t have time for amateur personal interpretation. Doherty and Mack and Price cite sources; you don’t. You’re just winging it with no credible backing whatsoever.
What a bunch of crap! You don’t even know what confirmation bias IS!
Why am I bothering with your nonsense?
Confirmation bias occurs when one doesn’t bother to examine any arguments or do any research on one’s own and instead one just arbitrarily says: “I believe X because it suits my already existing belief”. That’s what you’re doing! When I first read Doherty and Wells and Price and Welles and Mack and Liedner and Cutler and Freke and Gandy and others I can’t recall, I was a historicist because I was as unthinking as yourself on these issues and assumed what my culture assumed. Over the many, many years I read and questioned these arguments with critical thinking, rejecting many.
That is not confirmation bias, mocker!
So Wells and Cutler and Freke and Gandy and many others ended up on the garbage heap. But as hard as I tried, I could not come up with credible counter-arguments to Mack and especially Doherty, though there were weaker parts of Doherty’s Jesus Puzzle. But though there were a couple of weaker parts, but I still couldn’t find credible counter-arguments to them. But now with his new and much larger expanded version, Jesus: Neither God nor Man, those weaker parts have been made irresistible. I cannot come up with a single credible counter-argument, and neither has anyone else!
All the confirmation bias is coming from you and the other historicists. All of your pre-existing beliefs are that Jesus was a historical figure even if not God and you never, EVER researched the issue even a tiny bit, but just bluffed your way through with total confirmation bias and deeply irrational and arbitrary pseudo-arguments without credible evidence.
Offer some or admit you can’t.
Such juvenile crap – you’re re-inventing the 2400 year old rules of debate now!
It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove an existential negative! Therefore those positing an existential positive BEAR THE FULL BURDEN OF PROOF!
What a bunch of ridiculously uninformed and ignorant, rank-amateur bulldada. It doesn’t deserve a response. Take it up with Doherty; you can email him. I’m sure you’ve got him on the ropes!
At last! A good, solid argument! I commend you most heartily, Pleonast! Excellent thinking!
First you must understand that the historicists – even the purely secular ones – don’t argue that Jesus did nothing notable, else they wouldn’t bother trying to claim he was a historical figure.
So even the secular ones posit that Jesus overturned the money changers in the only Temple that mattered – the Jerusalem Temple. They also posit he was – if nothing else – one of the many “messiahs” of the time, competing for attention with the others.
Yet by pure luck, there happened to be living – right at the perfect time – an enormously important and notable historian, Josephus, who had a huge personal interest in all the “messiahs”. He asked people for tips and was constantly on the lookout for them. Not that he admired them, far from it! He relished making fun of them and tearing them down for his adoptive Roman family and the rest of the Roman Empire. Hey, everybody needs a hobby, right?
Josephus lists 21 bogus “messiahs” named Yeshua/Jesus. None of them fit. But there is one entry that we find no earlier than the 11’th century (and we can be sure it would have been referenced by previous Christian apologists and church fathers had they known of it earlier) that says: “Jesus the Christ”, of whom very flattering things are said later even if we arbitrarily remove the blatantly Christian elements. That Josephus – whose goal was to mock these guys – found one deserving of high praise that he never refers to again beggars belief. Both portions are very obviously deliberate Christian forgeries. If you remove them completely, the text flows far better and makes much more logical sense – more reasons to believe they’re 11’th century forgeries.
And that’s it. No mention of overturning the Temple; no mention of any preaching or ministry; no mention of any rebel matching the description; no mention of any trial; no mention of any assassination order from Herod; nothing in the records of the hated Pontius Pilate; no record of a crucifixion matching Jesus; nothing. Nada.
Oh, they try. And try and try and try. They’re motivated, you see, to prove their case. So they assume what is to be proved and cite the Gospels or the post-Gospel epistles, even though the genuine Pauline epistles make their view quite untenable. Or they cite legitimate historians like the later Tacitus who clumsily wrote of Christianity being founded by one “Christus” (not “Jesus”) which is painfully obviously a combination of a regurgitation of then-Christian beliefs with the total lack of knowledge of the alleged founder “Jesus”. Since Tacitus had never heard the name Jesus, he simply assumed the founder from the name “Christianity” itself. But again, I emphasize that Christianity was not founded by someone named “Christ” (let alone “Christus”), which was actually just a title, not a name!
And that is impossible had even the secularists’ historical Jesus lived. Therefore, he didn’t. Q.E.D.
And again, since it is logically and forensically impossible for anyone to prove an existential negative – i.e;, to prove that Jesus or pterodactyls on Jupiter never existed – the full burden of proof lies entirely with those making the positive claim. And they have tried and failed to produce anything credible; they merely assume what is to be proved or, also like cosmodan, reject 2400 years of the rule of logic and demand that we prove Jesus didn’t exist!
I want to make a comment here. First, I cannot control whether debate opponents provide rational arguments or whether they just rattle off empty rhetoric with no credible argument attached. Some arguments have been sound and legitimate, but most have not been. The exasperation you’ve seen from me is for all the posts or comments which lack a cogent, well-informed, logical argument. They come from people who just have a credulous assumption drawn from our ordinary, unsophisticated culture that just takes Jesus’ historical existence for granted without evidence and think that by throwing all those credulous, unthinking assumptions into the ring they’re making a credible argument against the mythicist position.
They’re not.
But I must also admit that what Doherty takes 800 dense pages to do, I cannot hope to accomplish on a message board. Some actual research is required into information I cannot provide here in a few thousand words on a message board. I’m not going to argue on Doherty’s behalf on the more subtle points that take hundreds of thousands of words to address; it simply isn’t feasible.
Another problem is that most readers don’t even try to grasp the mythicist argument as a whole. They take pot shots and think that if they poke a few tiny holes (which no one yet here has accomplished, regrettably) in some superficial areas, the whole argument comes crashing to the ground.
Even respected biblical scholar Paula Fredriksen fouls it up ridiculously poorly, as we can see here: Challenging Doherty. She never bothers reading more than a page or so and doesn’t understand even that much. For example, when she read the words “Conspiracy of Silence”, she doesn’t even grasp that this isn’t Doherty’s view but a name for her view; i.e., that there had to have been some kind of conspiracy to keep every single pre-Gospel Christian writer from ever even mentioning a historical founder named Jesus of Nazareth even though they somehow knew about him.
It’s claptrap, but that’s all the historicists are left with: Implicitly postulating such a conspiracy among the pre-Gospel writers to hide and exclude any and all mention of a historical founder named Jesus of Nazareth, just as cosmodan and ITR Champion and others have done. Like claiming that Paul "just wasn’t interested in God walking on earth! It’s pure claptrap.
That seems a marvelously large assertion. I think you’ll find any number of people who’d fully well agree that Jesus was altogether unremarkable, if he existed. Given that the oldest existing anti-Christian work we have (Celsus’) as much says that the real Jesus was just some grubby guy with a couple strange, poor followers, it’d be truly remarkable that since then secularists entirely skipped over this possibility. In fact, it would be singularly implausible for them to say anything other than that he was most likely any other random street preacher, a dime a dozen at that time as it is now.
Do we have ANY trial records of that time’s Sanhedrin or Roman Gov’s of Judea, assassination orders from Herod (and he had to have issued some!L) or records of Pontius Pilate? I do know we have some accounts of crucifixions, but I’m sure what we have are few in number compared to how many actually occurred.
Based on my reading of Theissen and Merz The Historical Jesus, p.64-74, this presentation is misleading. Josephus mentions Jesus on 2 occasions. For the Testimonium Flavianum, which you refer to, the authors list a number of hypotheses. Never mind though, methinks that the passage as written fails the laugh test. Heck, in the 1500s scholars noted that TF was assuredly written by a Christian and Josephus was a Jew. Still, it’s possible that the passage existed in some format prior to later editing (which would be unsurprising if Josephus’ quill was as sharp as you say), though I’m inclined to toss it out entirely.
But Josephus also “mentions the condemnation and stoning of James and others…” and James is introduced as, “the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.” T&M think it improbable that the passage is a Christian interpolation. (Yes, you discussed this with DtC.) The flow of this earlier passage reportedly is consistent with the writing style of Josephus. And the terminology and language is apparently Jewish rather than Christian - Christ would later become a proper name.
It’s so simple. Paul believed he was receiving divine revelations from God , which is what Jesus taught according to the gospels. Once you believe you can get your spiritual knowledge directly from God through revelation there’s no need to get it from any human being is there? In that case it simply doesn’t matter if some other apostles walked with an earthly Jesus of Nazareth. Ultimately their source of spiritual knowledge and Paul’s is the same source. The Holy Spirit. Paul has no need to go to them and ask them to teach him about Jesus of Nazareth.
Keep in mind that I’m not saying this is conclusive in any way. It isn’t. What I am saying is that since there is a very plausible and reasonable explanation that fits with a living earth walking JC then your interpretation of this passage doesn’t have the weight you want to give it. You and Doherty keep stressing Paul’s fixation with the spiritual realm. I see that in his writings. I’m saying that belief and fixation is part of the explanation as to why Paul wasn’t really concerned with historical Jesus. Jesus was still in charge and still teaching through the Holy Spirit.
I’m not taking it at face value. I’m saying it offers a plausible explanation. The apostles , including Paul were taught that divine revelation was the ultimate source of spiritual knowledge by Jesus of Nazareth. Once they understood this , let’s say, after his resurrection, which Paul speaks of often, then the focus would be on that source rather than an earth bound Jesus as teacher.
<snip>
how is it contrary to the evidence? Isn’t the fact that so little evidence exists the point you’re trying to make? You and Doherty use the scriptures and interpret them to make claims about what is likely. I’m saying that if this specific facet of the Jesus story is true , earth bound Jesus taught them about looking for divine revelation, then Paul’s fixation on the spirit fits with a former living, dead and then resurrected Jesus. The one Pauls often refers to.
and I don’t have time for your assumed unearned sense of superiority and automatic dismissal and ridicule of any argument you don’t like or understand that contradicts you and your hero.
well, one of us doesn’t seem to.
I hope you’re not saying that those who have done a lot of research and examined the arguments are no longer capable of confirmation bias, because that would be ridiculous. The fact that Doherty is a true scholar with a ton of research or that you have studied his work and his arguments does not free either of you from the possibility of conformation bias. Perhaps the problem is Doherty’s writing style and the difficulty in expressing complex ideas to a layman like myself but I call it as I see it. When he consistently uses biblical passages and insists passage X must have one obvious interpretation or when he stresses passages that seem to agree with him and brushes over passages that don’t as insignificant I see it as confirmation bias.
Well of course. Since you’re convinced then all the confirmation bias must be coming from those who have the nerve to disagree with you. I see.
You continue to address my posts as if I’m arguing for a historical Jesus. I’m not and never have. My first post to you was “We’re not sure”
Like you I assumed Jesus was a historical figure for years. Now I’ve accepted that we just don’t know and whether JC was based on a historical figure or not really doesn’t matter to me. Do you think you’ve got that now?
Which is what I just said. The fact is I haven’t claimed there was a historical Jesus. I’m discussing the strength of the mythacist argument and how certain we can be , according to that argument, that JC was not based on a living individual.
I don’t know. Why are you wasting your time insisting I’m making an argument I never made. It’s a mystery to me.
Just think of the time and completely unnecessary ridicule you could have saved by admitting this upfront.
The subject is interesting but I’d have to see more information about the culture of the time, more evidence about the popularity of the multi layered spiritual realms, evidence about Paul’s acceptance of that theology, etc.
My suggestion would be rather than start with interpretations of biblical passages, provide the historical foundation first and then have Paul’s writings considered with that foundation in mind.
What I pointed out was that Paul does seem to reference a living Jesus when he repeatedly speaks of his suffering, death and resurrection, his being born of a woman, being the seed of Abraham etc. You made the claim that all of those references are to some other spiritual realm. Maybe. But since you made the claim it’s up to you to provide the evidence. If you can’t because of time constraints and the sheer volume of the material that’s fine. Then perhaps you should back of the ridicule of those who want more evidence than you’ve offered so far.
It’s true that the perception that we have extensively kept records from the Roman Empire is greatly exaggerated, especially in backwater provinces like Judea. The fact is, we don’t have any records from Pilate whatsoever. We have physical confirmation that he was a prefect in Judea from an inscription found in Caesarea, and he’s mentioned by Philo, Josephus and Tacitus, so we know he was a historical person, but we don’t have anything from Pilate himself, or any official records from his adminstration.
The summary execution of troublemakers like Jesus are unlikely to have generated any official records anyway. Rome didn’t care. The Emperor was only concerned about its provincial governors keeping the peace and collecting taxes. They had neither the inclination nor the physical capability or reading through stacks of bureaucratic paperwork from every province. Local law enforcement was left up to the local governors, and wasn’t monitored or intervened in unless they were completely incompetent, or (as was actually the case with Pilate) so brutal that they were risking insurrection.
There are no records of Sanhedrin trials either. Most of what we know about the Sanhedrin in the 2nd Temple period comes from the Talmud.
This is one point that a lot of skeptics really do get wrong or overstate. It’s true we have no official records of the trial and execution of Jesus, but we don’t have any official records at all from Pilate’s tenure in Judea, and the execution of Jesus is not something he would have had any reason to record in the first place. I think a lot of people don’t really appreciate how insignificant and casual the incident would have been to the Romans. They rounded up troublemakers and crucified them all the time, and were especially ruthless at Passover. The summary arrest and execution of a Galilean peasant causing a ruckus at the temple would have made very little impression on them. It was literally just part of an ordinary day’s work. If you’d asked Pilate about the incident a month after it happened, he’d probably be hard put to remember who you were talking about. It just wouldn’t have been important to him.
Thank you, ambushed for a straightforward, nonconfrontational answer. As someone neutral on the question of Jesus’ historicity, this is the type of response that is most persuasive. I will pursue information on Josephus when I want more on that line.
This still seems to be the weakest part of the argument to me. Given the way exploits grow in the retelling, why should we expect Jesus to have done anything beyond the simplest, most ordinary things?
Absolutely correct, which is why it is strange that someone would make a claim that “Jesus never existed”–it’s impossible to prove. Let the historicists make there claims and provide the evidence for it. Don’t make an easy target by asserting an impossible-to-prove negative.
And this is why I find the resurrection plausible if not necessarily probable. Rural celebrity visits the big city during Passover and gets in over his head. He has friends, but none local to Jerusalem. He’s scheduled for execution.
You’re a follower: what do you do? You pay a bribe. You are the popular rabbi: what do you do? You get the hell out of Dodge (ie meet me in Galilee). Now I understand that Roman soldiers who accepted bribes under such circumstances risked death themselves. But if the execution indeed occurred during a busy holiday, they may have been short-staffed and had opportunity to look the other way.
Purists will argue that I’m not exactly describing a resurrection. Details, details: I say beating the Roman army counts as a miracle.
Thank You. This was my basic point all along. If you want to explain the arguments as to why you believe it’s more probable that JC was not based on an actual person that great and interesting. Starting with an assertion you can’t prove is something else.
But speculation isn’t going to cut it, as there are more plausible explanations around.
Like, he did get crucified and died. Leaving behind a desponded club of followers. I always imagined them sitting about having somekind of conversation like this:
-He can’t really be dead, can he?
-He’s the Messiah ferchrissake! He can’t be dead.
-You know guys he isn’t dead! He came to me in a dream to me last night.
-Cephas has seen him too
-So have I !
-Errrm me too I guess, kind of. YES! that gardener! I knew there was something fishy about him!!
But there just isn’t enough information whether or not there is a kernel of truth to the Jesus story. Likely there is, but we’ll probably never know what it is.