That’s completely wrong, I’m afraid. It was practically inevitable that the Jesus Myth would include the crucifixion of the godman character. First, a great many pre-Markan sources refer to the godman dying affixed to, or hanging from, a cross or tree, a powerful mythical totem. This was brought out strongly in Paul, who wrote long before the Gospel fictions were invented.
No, the crucifixion was necessary, mythically speaking. **But because NO ONE put the crucifixion in an actual historical setting until Mark, there was no problem accounting for any lack of witnesses.
(And by the way, at least one very early critic of Christianity knew that no Jesus even existed, let alone was executed).
[QUOTE=t-keela] ambushed
My link to Cecil’s column was only a link to what HE had to say on the subject. I was neither defending nor opposing his position, merely providing another POV.
I appreciate your passion for the subject and I agree with you on several points. But some of your remarks are rather condescending, disrespectful and insulting. Bad form…
[QUOTE]
You may see it as such, and that is your right, but I don’t. I also notice you didn’t direct that sentiment to Diogenes, who very rudely dumped me off with a brusque, two-sentence dismissal! Would you be happy if I treated you that way?
Let’s acknowledge that you and those who believe in a historical Jesus bear the full burden of proof, not me. Let’s just keep that in mind.
Yes. At least I certainly believe there was an enormous amount of Eastern beliefs and philosophy at Alexandria, as I stated in that thread. I don’t know what relevance that has, though, to be honest. But I’ll certainly be patient.
Quite so. There’s no doubt of that
On the contrary, there is proof – real proof – that there was no historical Jesus. Don’t fall for the long-discredited belief that you can’t prove a negative, for indeed that’s all we can do. It’s just that the negative has to be defined very rigorously first.
Now, the fact that there was no historical Jesus does NOT invalidate Christianity! That may sound contradictory, but it’s true. Many people consider Christianity to actually be Paulism. Paul believed passionately in the existence of a supernatural, heavenly Jesus Christ. He believed that as strongly as he disbelieved in an earthly, historical Jesus. All of Paul’s writings are based on his mystical, supernatural visions of the risen Christ (and when I say “risen”, I mean what Paul meant: Risen from the lowest level of Heaven to the highest, where he was co-equal with God).
In summary, the overwhelming, already extant proof of the non-historicity of Jesus in no way disproves Paulist Christianity; you don’t need an earthly Jesus to have a Heavenly Savior.
That’s all fine with me, at least in the present discussion. As I said earlier, there’s nothing inherent in the disproof of a historical Jesus that would deny you your supernatural faith in Him. My arguments are not about destroying Christianity, only the historicity of Jesus.
I believe – actually, I know – from the evidence and from the logic that considers ALL of the evidence that there was never an historical Jesus. That’s all I’m contending here.
You may see it as such, and that is your right, but I don’t see any insults. I also notice you didn’t direct that sentiment to Diogenes, who very rudely dumped me off with a brusque, two-sentence dismissal! Would you be happy if I treated you that way?
I strongly disagree. In any case, let’s acknowledge that you and those who believe in a historical Jesus bear the full burden of proof, not me. Let’s just keep that in mind.
Yes. At least I certainly believe there was an enormous amount of Eastern beliefs and philosophy at Alexandria, as I stated in that thread. I don’t know what relevance that has, though, to be honest. But I’ll certainly be patient.
Quite so. There’s no doubt of that!
On the contrary, there is proof – real proof – that there was no historical Jesus. Don’t fall for the long-discredited notion that you can’t prove a negative, for indeed that’s all we can do. It’s just that the negative has to be defined rigorously first.
Now, the fact that there was no historical Jesus does NOT invalidate Christianity! That may sound contradictory, but it’s true. Many people consider Christianity to actually be Paulism. Paul believed passionately in the existence of a supernatural, mystical, heavenly Jesus Christ. He believed that as strongly as he disbelieved in an earthly, historical Jesus. All of Paul’s writings are based on his mystical, supernatural visions of the risen Christ (and when I say “risen”, I mean what Paul meant: Risen from the lowest of the Seven Levels of Heaven to the highest, where he was co-equal with God).
In summary, the overwhelming, already extant proof of the non-historicity of Jesus in no way disproves Paulist Christianity; you don’t need an earthly Jesus to have a Heavenly Savior.
That’s all fine with me, at least in the present discussion. As I said earlier, there’s nothing inherent in the disproof of a historical Jesus that would deny you your supernatural faith in Him. My arguments and positions are not about destroying Christianity, only the historicity of Jesus.
I believe from the evidence and from the logic that considers ALL of the evidence that there was never an historical Jesus. That’s what I’m contending here.
Porphyry, whose partial work only survives after all the Christian book-burning because he was quoted by Eusebius in his work attacking Porphyry, directly stated that he and his peers well knew that Jesus and the entire Gospel story was purely an invented myth.
Ambushed…Dio may have dismissed your argument but he didn’t say OR imply that you were ignorant or underinformed, ridiculous and absurd, etc. Perhaps I misread these comments, if so then I apologize.
I don’t always agree with what Dio has to say but he is usually diplomatic in his presentation. Unless it’s the pit. He can get rather nasty there sometimes.
But this is GD… eitherway never mind, I’m nobody’s mod.
BTW I was saying that if we had real scientific PROOF of Jesus’ existence and the New Testament AS FACT…then we would all be on our knees.
Last statement, I asked what you believe. I had edited that statement trying to clean it up but apparently I cleaned it up too much. What I was asking is what do you believe IN. As in are you an atheist? agnostic…hindu, buddhist, christian, etc. I understand what you said you DON’T believe.
It looks to me that we aren’t very far apart on points except for the main one.
You think or “know” there was absolutely NO real person upon whom the writers of the New Testament were referring.
I think or believe that the New Testament does refer to someone that actually lived.
Simple enough…all the bullshit outta the way. Man or myth? Real or not?
If that’s the OP then let me go and I’ll see ya later. okay
Again, I see no insults. Unlearned comments are unlearned comments. They are not necessarily wrong, just underinformed.
I understood that. I was simply saying in reply that there IS proof that Jesus did NOT exist.
Ah. I am an epistemological agnostic and a soft atheist.
An epistemological agnostic is one who believes that God(s) and the supernatural are transcendent, and since human beings can never acquire true knowledge of the transcendent (by definition), no one can ever know anything about any God(s) or the supernatural.
A soft atheist is someone who simply lacks a positive faith in the existence of God(s). This is different from the belief of the hard atheist who has a positive belief in the non-existence of God.
Why do the Gospels treat this event with such causualness? To me, this wouldrival the crucifixion in terms ofimpact. Think about it…Jesus returns to life, joins the apostles in a meal, and dispells any doubt of his return to life…he even asks Thomas to put his hand in the wound (in his side). To further reenforce the point, he calls for food and eats withe the apostles, reminding them that a ghost does not eat. Yet, after 40 days (doing God knows what), he takes off for the heavenly father’s mansions “I go to prepare a place for you”.
This is completely at variance with any Roman or Greek god’s exit… and this is why i tend to belive the Gospels on this point (the Ascension). Surely this is the most un-spectacular return to heaven that anyone could have.
Again ambushed we appear to be fairly close on many points. I still don’t agree YET that you can prove Jesus didn’t exist. But that’s not up to you…it’s my responsibility to show some evidence that he at least could have existed.
An epistemological agnostic huh…well that’s not quite an atheist IMHO and not too far from my own beliefs. I have studied many philosophies over the years and have come to this conclusion. Most, if not all of man’s theologies and philosophies have some basic element of truth. However miniscule it may be. The problem is that man has distorted and perverted these truths to suit his own selfish interests.
I have spent a lifetime filtering out as much of the bullshit that I can distinguish in each and every philosophy I have studied. In some cases it may come down to a SINGLE idea. As a result I have found for myself a “unified” ideaology that is not only believable (to me) it makes sense and is livable. It aspires much to the Vedic traditions without the mysticism that I find a bit too “miraculous” if you will. That’s probably where the New Testament fails in its application to modern man.
Anyway dammit…if I misread your remarks as insults. Lo siento ~later
Where does it indicate he knows that? And how would he know that, other than his own speculation? Porphyry lived in the middle and late 200s, well after the Gospels were written. AFAIK, his criticisms have nothing to do with the historicism of the gospels, but have to do with Origen applying Greek philosophical thought to Jewish and Christian scriptures.
First, the old saw about not being able to prove a negative is up to its usual tricks here – the kindest thing a true skeptic would be able to say about either claims for a historical Jesus or claims that He did not exist, is “Not Proven.” Your “proof” is no more valid than the “proof” of, who was it, Josh MacDowell? that claimed to be able to demonstrate absolutely that He did exist.
As for your demands:
You might start this process by validating the underlying assumptions for asking them. To start out with, “Q” is completely hypothetical – a reasonable assumption, to be sure, but one founded on an odd set of parallels and one casual passing reference in a historical document. So “the earliest strata of Q” is some scholar’s presumption of what parts of the hypothetical document or tradition came first and what later – a nice trick to generate a tradition with earlier and later elements when you’re allowing only 40-45 years from supposed events to finalization of documents! Second, Q is a “sayings source” – “The Wit and Wisdom of Jesus,” more or less, not “Christ: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.” (That’s what Mark thought he was writing.) And what does “why some of them leave out his name” imply? Who, what, when, and where?
Third, I’m not accustomed to spelling out in my posts what everyone heard on CBS or Fox; I presume an informed readership – as does nearly every other Doper. What we will cite is stuff that may not have made the national news, stuff that appears to be getting buried as inconvenient or inconsequential that we think is quite otherwise, that sort of thing. Paul wrote most of his letters didactically – he’s assuming the role of a mentor teaching a distant group of followers, in most cases, ones he had converted personally. They are presumed to have known the stories current about the guy in whose Lordship they are believing, and counting on for salvation – and in some cases, risking their lives to do so. What Paul is getting down to is the significance behind those facts, which he as the first great theologian of the Church was unearthing and making evident to them.
Fourth, while you don’t give the quote but only a vague paraphrase, what Paul is doing is saying that he doesn’t depend on Peter and the Twelve for his authority, but learned about Jesus from his own mystical experiences – which may or may not be read in a context that supports your assertion. Taken one way, it’s purely “I didn’t first hear the Gospel from them, but from Him personally”; taken the other, it’s “everything I know about Christ, I learned from my own navel,” so to speak. The second claim in your third “Tell me EXACTLY” paragraph is IMO a complete misreading of what Paul said – but I want to see you make your case for why you think otherwise.
Fifth, why in the world would you think Paul never went to see the sites of the Passion in Jerusalem? I can think of at least twice he was in the city after his conversion, without recourse to looking it up in Acts, any of his letters, or a biographical article including tradition.
Sixth, Porphyry was about the last authority anyone could rely on for factual data – he was the second leader of the Neo-Platonists, in short head of a Gnostic competing tradition, and one founded on the most arcane investing of Plato’s dialogues with a hidden occult meaning. I’d be more inclined to trust Muhammad on facts about Christ than Porphyry – although IMO both had a bad case of proctoencephaly.
Finally, you do not have a clue what traditional Christianity, the Incarnation or the Atonement, mean – you’re arguing on the basis of one book against what its author seems to misunderstand about Christian theology. Let me steer you to I Corinthians 15, Paul’s detailed explanation of the significance of the Resurrection, and in particular to verses 17-19. In so many words, Paul says that if the dead are not raised, then Christ was not raised from the dead, and if that was not the case, then we’re founding our faith on a false hope, since anything we get out of Christianity is for this life only. (Obviously, he goes on from there to point out that He was indeed risen.) Your little sermonette about Him rising through levels of Heaven, while you can make a Pauline case for elements of it, has nothing to do with traditional Christology – which presumes that a real human being who walked the Earth is the guy who died to save us.
And rather than reasserting for the Nteenth time that Doherty has proven that the historical Jesus didn’t exist – how about explaining, succinctly but as completely as possible, how he went about producing this proof?
(BTW, I’m in no way denigrating your comments – you’re advancing as interesting a theological argument as I’ve seen here in many a day. I’m just as prepared to argue “that ain’t proof” at you as at the typical fundamentalist drive-by witness that thinks citing the Bible is absolute proof that should convince anybody.
Since you haven’t specified a particular stratificaction, I’ll assume you’re using Kloppenborg’s stratification of Q.
The earliest Q sayings are just that- sayings. They are not intended to be anecdotes or elucidations of Jesus as a person because Jesus as a person didn’t matter yet. What mattered was what he said. he was a teacher and Q is a compilation of teachings and sayings. That was its only intent. It was not supposed to be a biography. If you’re looking to a sayings gospel for biographical information, you’re looking in the wrong place. If you do a google search for quotations by Mark Twain or Benjamin Franklin you will find lists of quotations with nary a biographical detail about either of them.
If you read Plato’s recorded dialogues of Socrates you will little or no biographical data about Socrates.
Not finding biography in a sayings tradition is only to be expected, and as a matter of fact, I do think that most of the biographical information in the gospels was fictionalized (with the possible exception of a few scattered anecdotes, some of them preserved in the narrative framings of Q1) but I think the core sayings tradition itself is authentic and that it came from a real person.
In point of fact, Paul is the only pre-Gospelic NT writer, so don’t get too excited about that word “all.”
And Paul does iterate a handful of facts that could be characterized both as historical and as recent. All of the following can be found in the Pauline corpus:
[ul][li]Jesus had 12 followers.[/li][li]One of his followers was called Cephas (Petros in Greek).[/li][li]He had a brother named James.[/li][li]He had a last meal with his disciples[/li][li]He was crucified.[/li][li]Paul claims to have met both Peter and James which establishes a claim to recent historicity.[/li][li]Paul also addresses the issue of people who have died since the crucifixionm which again establishes a claim to recent historicity.[/ul][/li]
You also have to bear in mind the genre and intent of Paul’s letters as well as his own probable unfamiliarity with a lot of the biographical details of Jesus. These were sermons. He was preaching to people who were already Christians. It was not necessary for him to rehash the Jesus story in every letter.
I think one of the mistakes that Dougherty makes is to reduce everything that Paul “knew” to the content of a few known letters. It is doubtlessly true that some aspects of the Jesus myth simply hadn’t been created yet (eg. the Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, the Nature Miracles) so there’s no reason for Paul to mention them. But to say that Paul could not have known anything more than what he wrote in his letters is an obvious fallacy and an argument from silence.
Chapter and verse please? I want to know precisely what statement of Paul’s you’re referring to before I respond to this.
Since Paul himself claims to have persecuted Christians before his own conversion, I’m quite curious about how he could kave persecuted something he’d never heard of.
First of all, we don’t actually know what Paul did or did not visit, do we? There’s that reductionist fallacy again. Paul is more than the content of his letters.
Furthermore, I would argue that the sites associated with Jesus were pretty much created by Constantine during the 4th Century. Jesus’ followers probably did not know where he was crucified or buried and the empty tomb probably never existed. There was nothing for Paul to visit. “Golgotha” and the empty tomb hadn’t been invented yet. Even the Passion had not been invented yet. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a crucifixion or that Paul didn’t believe it had happened, only that the site was unknown and the traditional sites still uncreated.
As to the criterion of embarrassment in the crucifixion story. Apologies for the cross are found in Paul:
Gal 5:11
In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.
1 Cor 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Cor 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles
Romans 9:32-33
32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” 33As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.
It’s pretty clear to me that these statements are defensive rather than assertive. YMMV.
Assuming Q existed, as is widely believed, it is possible that it was a collection of sayings recorded by a contempory follower of Jesus who heard them direct. On this theory, as Jesus didn’t begin his ministry until about 30 years old, such a follower would not have been expected to be an eyewitness to anything in the life of Jesus before then to record such details. It is quite possible that this follower wasn’t there when Jesus was crucified; after all this did happen abruptly. Thus this follower could not record eyewitness details of the crucifixion. The only thing left historically of significance this follower called Q could have personally witnessed is the alleged miracles of Jesus. For those who are not Christians, but feel that there was an actual person called Jesus who had a ministry and preached, the omission of these miracles by Q would be expected. Because they never happened.
How do you know Paul didn’t? If he had, all he would have seen is a place that some claimed Jesus was crucified at, and an empty tomb where Jesus was said to have arisen from, etc. What he would have seen is nothing remarkable enough to have mandated writing about.
Polycarp and Diogenes have tackled your challenges pretty well, ambushed, so I’ll take on the other side of the argument.
If there never was a historical Jesus, tell me EXACTLY how the Jesus Myth developed. What was the theology of the inventor(s) of the myth? How did that theology become Pauline theology, or Markan theology, or Thomas theology? I’ve read Wells and Price and Doherty, and this is where they all seem to fall down. If there was no actual person, what do you put in its place? Where do these myths come from? With what purpose were they invented? It’s not enough to say “myths happen”. You have to provide some sort of logical development of the tradition to replace the standard one.
Yes, I agree that some, probably many, Christianity sects consider the actual existence of Jesus as a vital part of their doctrine and belief. Earlier, I proposed that one could base a religion on the ideas and lessons behind the stories. Even the idea that “Jesus died for your sins”, offers some enlightening implications whether it’s based on fact or a myth.
How could I apply such a principle to my own life? I begin with premise that a sin is an act that I do that hurts myself or others. Let’s say I commit a sin by stealing my neighbor’s hub caps. Christianity asks me to repent (be sorrow for my sin and try not to repeat it). By repenting, I allow my one of my behavior patterns to stop or die. In general, people will screw up, and something must change to correct that behavior.
It seems that this discussion on whether Jesus is real is akin to whether god is real. I don’t consider myself to be Christian. That doesn’t mean that Christian or Buddhism or religions don’t contain some relevant and important lesson and techniques to live a better life.
This would explain the incongruities amongst the various gospels. These are various versions of a similar story meant for different audiences.
