These facts don’t appear inexplicable to this empirical agnostic. Indeed, few anecdotes are known about Shakespeare, despite the fact that he lived well after the invention of the printing press. Never mind the absence of contemporary writings, “Placing Shakespeare in an historical perspective.”
To be more specific, if Paul wrote, The Handbook of Jesus Christ, I’d be surprised if he didn’t give a more lengthy outline of Jesus’ teachings. But he didn’t: Paul wrote letters to various Congregations for fairly particular (indeed, somewhat narrow) reasons.
Furthermore, the Gospel of Thomas consists entirely of sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus. (Admittedly, dating that work (and its antecedents) is tricky).
My main problem with the “Jesus never existed” hypothesis is that I can’t think of another example where a nonexistent person has been invented from whole cloth within 30 years of his death. It just doesn’t seem plausible. At the same time, I find it wholly likely that legendary elements might adhere to an actual historical personage. For example, Churchill and Twain both have a number of quotes attributed to them that they apparently never said.
Full Disclosure: No, I haven’t read Dougherty. I confess that I require additional incentive to do so.
Finally: With all due respect ambushed the question of whether the mythic hypothesis is plausible precedes questions regarding the strength of the evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazarath.
On a second reading, I noticed the following sentence: “…they don’t try to solve any doctrinal disputes with Jesus’ own words, which they would have had he been a historical figure!”. Now that’s interesting, for Paul’s letters certainly cover doctrinal disputes. …
Um ok, now I’m confused. It took me about 1 minute on the web to find a counterexample: in 1 Corintheans 11(23) Paul quotes Jesus during the Last Supper as support for the doctrinal discussion starting on line 27. There may be other examples: I suspect there are.
Dio, your post 88 is far too confused in its tags and logic for me to provide a proper reply. If you wish a reply, please re-post it with the tags fixed. Thanks
You have misunderstood me. (By the way, you keep ignoring the bulk of my posts.) The Galatians reference, by the way, tells us that Paul never heard a Gospel from any human being and that Paul’s Gospel is based entirely on his own mystical, supernatural visions. That’s a very revealing and very relevant fact.
I do not use Galatians as a source of the common fact among critical scholars that not one of “Jesus’” alleged direct disciples was known of historically or biographically or in any reliable way by the time anyone wrote of them; not by the time of Paul’s writings, not by the time of Mark’s or anyone else. Jerusalem’s Cephas and James were NOT the disciples Peter and James of the Evangelists. How could you not know that? You need to brush up on Mack and other critical scholars.
We would almost certainly have many more examples of the Romans and others testifying that Jesus never existed if the Christians hadn’t have burned everything of the sort to nothing but ash. The only reason we know of Porphyry’s denial of Jesus’ reality is because the Christians didn’t burn Eusebius!
p.s.: Furthermore, the idea that someone would go through the records and not find someone is unlikely to have frequently bothered anyone, any more than it would today. The Romans weren’t the record-obsessed Third Reich Germans, you know.
Sir, respectfully, you don’t have the tiniest clue as to what you’re rambling ignorantly about. It’s naive in the extreme to imagine that no one would say a word mentioning Jesus’ earthly, historical details in a real biographical setting for several decades only to suddenly start writing about them out of the blue decades and decades later! If the details of GOD’S LIFE ON EARTH were insignificant (and I can imagine no scenario wherein they would be), they would have STAYED insignificant. If they were important, they would have ALWAYS been important. You can’t have it both ways!!
If you want to claim that Shakespeare is unhistorical just as Jesus is, be my guest. I, myself, do not make such a claim.
All referring to the mystical, supernatural Christ ONLY, and never a historical, near-contemporary Jesus.
First, to issue such a bold assertion is merely to copy the fictionalist’s timeline! Can’t you see that? Don’t you see that you’re foolishly assuming what is to be proved?? "30 years after “HIS DEATH”!! Whose death, sir? Whose? According to my thesis, Jesus is a mythical person who never lived, let alone died!! Prove he died, and you’ll have proved the case. THEN we can talk about timelines!
Whoosh! :smack:
Second, prove it’s impossible that the Confucius myth wasn’t invented within 30 years or less! I’ll wait for these two proofs, both of which you need to establish before your points have even the tiniest validity.
No one’s arguing against that. But having mythical elements hardly proves a figure is historical, now does it?
How 'bout to be less innocent of the facts of the case?
That’s just not so. As the fictional Holmes said (you do believe he’s mythical, don’t you?), ‘Eliminate the impossible and whatever’s left, no matter how improbable, must be the solution.’
Well, the historicist hypothesis is impossible, given all the evidence that is completely incompatible with the historicist view. The only alternative is the ahistoricist position, which must be the truth.
He can argue that it is unlikely but that doesn’t disprove the logic of my previous post. People are arguing “logic” by assuming premises that aren’t proven.
According to previously accepted “facts” made by ambushed, logic shows a high probability that:
-There was a real man named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God.
-The Gospels were supposedly written about a person named Jesus and that he claimed to be the son of God.
-Both of these things are undisputed.
To sit here and repeat the Gospels as evidence when it is clear that some folks don’t see them as valid is a waste of time. Also, any evidence outside of “holy” scripture is going to be invalid as it is usually considered apocryphal. Anything written after or before Christ existed is obviously unnacceptable. Historical accounts have either been destroyed or never existed…not proof but something to be considered. There are many people who we believe existed that we have no proof of but that’s another debate.
That only leaves a logical argument. Simply because someone lived a life that resembles a myth does not disprove that the person actually lived.
Was there a Santa Claus? Did he try to live the myth or did the myth live through him?
Was there a man in Galilee that walked among the people and claimed to be God’s son? Was there such a man that inspired the Gospels to be written? Did they embellish on his words by adding things to capture an audience?
In all cases, I say yes.
The important thing to remember is that Christianity is supposed to be about love and forgiveness. Regardless of what you believe in regards to Christ’s existence, you must surely agree that this idea is one we should ALL believe in.
You can also find pages of quotations for both which are just quotations.
No, not so much really. Especially not in the dialogues. Have you evr read Plato?
And after all that, we’re still left with an authentic sayings tradition from a man who was not a figure of worship while he was alive. No, his biographical details didn’t matter. He was not a figure of worship. Do you get that yet?
Now I know you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Please…entertain me…name a single non-Pauline book in the New Testament which dates from before the gospels. I’ll give you a hint. There aren’t any.
You are really just flaunting you ignorance now. The items I named are objectively historical claims made by Paul about Jesus. You said Paul made no such claims. You’re wrong. He did. Not very many, not very useful, but historical claims they be, nonetheless.
So please enlighten me. Is it your position that Paul did not make those claims? If so, please present your thesis for why his letters are wrong.
You’re missing the point. Paul claims that Jesus appeared to “the Twelve.” That is a historical claim. The authenticity of the claim is irrelevant to whether it’s a historical claim. I’m starting to think you don’t quite grasp how scholars use this terminology.
Paul said he was a disciple. We are only discussing what Paul claims, not about whether his claims are true.
Nothing, but Paul says that Jesus had a brother named James. One again, we are only discussing whether Paul makes historical claims, not about whether his claims are true.
Now this is just completely false and asinine unless you believe that virtually the entirety of mainstream Christianity are “extreme fundamentalists.”
Who said anything about a list of attendants? I just said Paul claimed a last supper, and he did. I actually think that Paul was the origin of the Eucharist stories.
You’re kidding me right? You’re seriously denying that Paul claimed Jesus was crucified?
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Please do some actual research or take some classes on the NT or early Christian history instead of just surfing around on fringe websites.
We are only discussing historical claims made by Paul. Paul claims that James was the brother of Jesus and that Cephas was his disciple.
Josephus claims that Jesus had a brother named James.
Your claim that “believing Christian scholars” don’t believe that Cephas and James knew Jesus is complete horseshit.
It doesn’t matter what you think it means. All that matters is that it is a historical claim by Paul.
I have no idea what you think your point is with this but genre is quite relevant and you have not made any sort of response o my point about that. Your quotation from Galatians has nothing to do with my point.
Paul didn’t say that. You’re forcing much too broad an interpretation upon the word “gospel,” as I said before.
I have read it. I have even linked to it on this board. Search the forum for “Jesus Puzzle” and you will find me talking about it. Like I said, I was not convinced.
Why don’t you read Bernard Mueller’s critique of Doherty and let me know if still so damn confident about his conclusions.
(FYI, Mueller is a borderline mythicist himself. He actually agrees with Doherty on a number of points- as do I- but he debunks a few points too. Doherty tends to be somewhat selective and ad hoc in his presentation of evidence. I’m sure you will agree after reading Mueller’s piece)
In 2000 years, if someone fails to find any anecdotes about L. Ron Hubbard in any surviving literature of Scientology, should he assume that Hubbard never existed, & Dianetics was written by someone else? In point of fact, we have testimony of Jesus existing. It’s called the Gospel of Mark. In order to advance your argument, you have to do some big somersaults around that.
I already call myself a fool. But here you miss the point. Holy sites came in later: as Christianity was Gentilised & paganised; & after the holy site of Judaism, the Temple, was destroyed. The Messianic Jews of the Jesus/Cephas/James movement(s) had quite enough holy sites & traditions as Jews.
Christianity, quite possibly, was then about internal relationship with the divine (as it is among many Christians today). It was, in the beginning, more like Scientology today, in that it had no more need to see Jesus’s birthplace than modern Scientologists have need to see L. Ron Hubbard’s. All that specifically Christian pilgrimage jive came later.
Your problem–Doherty’s problem–is that you expect the Christians of Paul’s generation to look just like the superstitious Christians of Constantine’s. I was raised by reconstructionist “New Testament Christians,” who base their religion on the NT as written. And I can tell you there is another perfectly rational way to look at Christ’s life & teaching, which pooh-poohs the idea of holy sites, or pilgrimage as any kind of religious duty. Two things above all else matter to these people: Christ’s teachings, & his conquest of death. That these people live today (I can introduce you to hundreds) implies that such people could have existed in Paul’s time–that in fact Paul’s epistles look the way they do because Paul was trying to give people a religion that governed there daily lives, not a bunch of bull about holy sites & magic places.
You, sir, on the other hand, expect the Christians of the time to have necessarily been medieval Roman Catholics of the most superstitious sort, if Jesus had lived. Why would you think that, if you think that Christianity started as something more abstracted? It did start as abstracted in its practices. It also, apparently, started with men who claimed to have seen it.
You are fanatically sure that you know things that you do not know. I know the type; I was, after all, raised by fundamentalist Christians.
There’s not only one explanation for a disinterest in historical sites. My previous post offers another one.
Further, Paul’s surviving letters don’t attempt to be the founding documents of a religion. They are written on (very expensive in that age) parchment, to people who were already Christians. They needed correction, not a ground-up explanation of what the audience already knew. The Gospels sort of try to be those founding documents, but if they don’t seem quite like what you would write when founding a religion, I don’t know what to tell you.
But if they’re not likely founding texts, then the likely explanation for weird voids in the NT’s outline of Christian doctrine is twofold: First, that Christians saw themselves as building on a Judaic foundation, & second, that perhaps the true founding documents that put this all forth clearly (if the Gospel of Mark isn’t that) were discarded as undesirable by later editors. Neither of these indicates that Jesus did not exist.
And finally, you cannot make a certain argument from an assumption. (I am referring, of course, to your strident claims about Q, which none of us has ever seen outside of its later dressed-up versions.) Q, if it can be said to exist, did survive, as the Gospels of Matthew & Luke. Church bishops weren’t going to save a stripped-down gospel of just sayings, to publish alongside Matthew & Luke, when they had the entirety (probably) of Q in Matthew & Luke–its expanded versions. In any case, the Q document could have been the purported sayings of a man who actually existed. Big deal.
You’re ticking me off. Again, go study the practice of modern Scientology before you start making assertions about how a religion actually starts. Scientologists read what Hubbard said, not who he was. If they started with who he was, they might not care what he said!
I could say the same for Lao-tse. Even Socrates is important for what he said (& for the Academy Plato founded) (and, hey, as Josh McDowell has pointed out, we have no copies of Plato from even close to Socrates’s life). None of this means that they didn’t exist either. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Please note: I’m not claiming that Jesus necessarily existed. I think Cephas & James stuck words in a dead man’s mouth, & that dead man may be a composite. But even if you’re right, you haven’t proven it here.
Or maybe you’re talking past us. You claim that a historical miracle-worker who rose from the dead & was God himself never existed. Fine. So do I, & I imagine most of us here. The difference is, you think the myth started with an abstracted angelic concept alone (making Xtianity merely a Jewish mystery religion), while I think that the myth may have been attached to a man Cephas actually knew–not a god, but a crucified rabbi/rabble-rouser. The Gospels may be unreliable. But this idea of a physical Christ came from somewhere.
If you’re going to quote Doherty as holy writ, I can quote Hyam Maccoby, & make as much sense.
I’m sorry you’re arguing so far above your intellectual capacity.
What’s impossible, my friend, is the historicist position. What’s impossible is that Jesus existed -COMBINED- with all the other evidence that demonstrates that he did not. A thesis is no damned good and cannot be true if it cannot explain -ALL- of the evidence.
This historicist position cannot explain ALL of the evidence. The ahistoricist can.
That’s not very relevant at all. What matters is that the earliest writings about Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin included plenty of biographical detail and so did the later and the latest. It was probably not until the Internet that you could find sayings all by themselves; sayings that would have no interest or relevance if you did not already know of the lives of Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin!
Yes. I’ve also read the biographical data and historical settings of Socrates within Plato’s Socratic dialogues. By the way, it’s also clear that you’ve never read Doherty, Price, Wells, or Mack’s The Christian Myth. I feel that It’s inappropriate that you’re taking such a strong position without carefully reading the source material.
“Authentic”??? That’s just what we’re debating! You don’t get to just make unfounded assertions that flaunt the topic under debate, you know! Read Doherty, Price, Wells, and Mack’s The Christian Myth
Bullshit! That’s just plain bullshit. It is utterly contrary to human psychology!! People do NOT work that way! If they write ANYTHING about an actual, living man, they include biographical details and historical settings! ALWAYS! It is the total ABSENCE of this type of information in the early material that points out in such a glaring form how WEIRD and COUNTER-HISTORICAL this all is!!
Don’t you get it yet?? No, your analysis and rhetoric are totally clueless. You’re blithering your way through a debate that you lost days and days ago!
You’re opinions are utterly daft and bereft of truth, fact, or logic! You don’t have the tiniest hint of a clue what you’re blithering through your ass about!
Mark is generally dated at approximately 70 AD (or later by some critical scholars).
Most Christians contend that Hebrews was written in 65 AD by an anonymous author OTHER THAN PAUL (That’s ONE, which already demonstrates that you have no knowledge whereof you speak). Critics also hold that Hebrews was not written by Paul, but while they’re not sure who did write it, a significant percentage thinks it was Priscilla.
Traditional Christians think that the epistle James was written in 45 AD by James, not Paul (That’s TWO!) Critical scholars place the date significantly later, but my point stands.
Traditional Christians hold that 1 Peter was written around 65 AD by Peter. Some critical scholars agree with the date, others don’t, but they all agree the author was NOT Paul (That’s THREE!)
Most Christians believe that 2 Peter was written in 67 AD, also by Peter. (That’s FOUR!) Critics disagree with both the dating and the author, but they agree it wasn’t Paul.
There. I’ve demonstrated that you don’t have any idea what you’re ever so ignorantly ranting about!
You’re WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. How can you be so hopelessly naive? Paul isn’t citing ANYTHING about the historical Jesus, he was referencing the historical PAUL! That is, people PAUL knew. We KNOW that these people didn’t know Jesus! Christ! Can’t you read??
How naive you are!
Yes, of COURSE it’s a historical reference – it’s just not a reference to anything to do with a historical Jesus! It’s a historical reference to Paul’s own time! Why can’t you read and reason more carefully?
Since it’s obvious that you lied when you claimed to have read Doherty, let me quote him for you on this point: Note that the appearance in 1 Cor. 15:5 is to the full Twelve. If these were the Gospel Twelve and that account were correct – Judas having dropped out (at the end of a rope) – it would only have been to eleven. More than one commentator has fussed over this little `inaccurate detail’ (eg, E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.277).
Even the term in Acts 6:2, imbedded in a piece of tradition whose reliability is uncertain, is ambiguous. We might postulate that the Twelve are a group within the Jerusalem sect who are charged with certain duties, and that their number was chosen as a symbolic representation of the twelve tribes of Israel. They may also have had a symbolic function anticipating the coming Parousia, for the Gospels record the apocalyptic expectation that the Apostles shall sit on twelve thrones to judge the world when Jesus returns as the Son of Man.
The same symbol of the twelve tribes is undoubtedly the source of the idea we find in Revelation 21:14, the only clear mention of “the twelve” as apostles in the first century, and that right at its end. Yet Revelation gives us no historical Jesus, and such apostles need not be linked to an earthly Master. That “twelve” is a mystic number and not a part of history is shown by the context: the heavenly Jerusalem possesses twelve gates bearing the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, and a city wall with twelve foundation stones; upon these stones are inscribed “the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” It was probably such symbolic thinking which created the tradition that Jesus had twelve apostles, with the added factor that some body in the primitive church had been labeled the Twelve.In other words, Paul is not referring to what would be the Gospelic, Jesus-contemporary Eleven, but rather a Pauline-contemporary group of a dozen people who were something like high church officials, just as we find The Twelve in modern Mormonism. How could you not know that the people who witnessed this vision included Paul himself, Paul who never saw any historical Jesus?? Damn, how I wish I was debating this with an informed person!
Actually, he said he was an apostle, and, just like the other apostles, never knew Jesus. You’ve never even read the NT, have you! Note the important fact that Paul emphatically insists he was an apostle, even though (like all the other historical apostles, which seems to have numbered over 500), there was never any doubt or question but that Paul had never known Jesus! Are you getting that yet? Are you finally beginning to catch on? To help alleviate your appalling amount of ignorance on this issue, please --** OH PLEASE **-- read Earl Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle!
Sigh. AL GORE-ISH OVER-LOUD SIGH! You know, Dio, I used to think you were an extraordinarily knowledgeable person. And I’ll probably still believe that on subjects other than Christianity, the Bible, and the historicity of Jesus, all topic where you’ve emphatically demonstrated that your understanding is equivalent to that of just about the most clueless, half-assed, know-nothing newbie I’ve ever encountered.
Only a fool would think that Paul is speaking of James being the genetic sibling of Jesus! Christ on a water buffalo, are you ever hopelessly naive! You really should leave this debate to people who know what they’re talking about. Really!
Again, since you obviously never read him like you claimed you did, let me quote Note 26 from Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle: Compare also 1 Corinthians 9:5. Here is a literal translation: “Have we not the right to take along a sister (adelphen), a wife, as do the rest of the apostles and the brothers (adelphoi) of the Lord and Cephas?”
Look at the word “sister.” No one would say that Paul is referring to his own or anyone else’s sibling [That would mean they were marrying their sisters! – ambushed] He means a fellow-believer of the female sex, and he seems to use it in apposition to (descriptive of) the word “wife.” Indeed, all translations render this “a believing wife” or “a Christian wife.”
This, too, should cast light on the meaning of adelphos, both here and elsewhere. It refers to a fellow-believer in the Lord. The more archaic rendering as “brethren of the Lord” conveys exactly this connotation: a community of like-minded believers, not “siblings” of each other or anyone else. Thus, a “brother of the Lord,” whether referring to James or the 500, means a follower of this divine figure, and in 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul would be referring to some of these members of the Jerusalem sect.
So catch the fuck up with the rest of the informed world, okay? Didn’t you get a big enough clue when the so-called Ossuary of James showed that the words “the brother of Jesus” were added in the late 20’th century rather than in the first or second? Sheesh! How naive you are!
You then blather stupidly about how Cephas was the Peter of the Gospels. Do your homework, man! How clueless can you be? Since you lied about reading Doherty, I guess we must assume you lied about reading Mack and Price and Wells, too. Only traditionalists and fundamentalists believe such rot, and then only because they’re told they have to!
That’s a lie. You claimed that Paul referred to a historical Last Supper, which is also a lie. Quoting Doherty: [indent]Some of the savior gods had instituted sacraments: Mithras, after slaying the bull as a salvific blood sacrifice, had dined with the sun god, and this supper became the Mithraic cultic meal, similar to elements of the Christian Eucharist. Here, then, is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Paul is not referring to any historical Last Supper, but rather to the origin myth attached to the Christian sacred meal (at least in Paul’s circle). The words are probably Paul’s personal version of things, since he clearly identifies it as revealed knowledge, “from the Lord,” not passed-on tradition through apostolic channels. The spiritual Christ himself, in a mythical time and place (including “at night”), had established this Supper and spoken the words about his body and blood that gave the meal its present meaning.
I had written: Who was crucified? If you mean Cephas, who didn’t know Jesus, then big deal. If you meant Jesus, he was crucified in the angelic sphere of heaven, not on Earth., to which you replied:
Please don’t be more daft than you have to. Paul spoke often and passionately of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection in the heavenly sphere, but spoke not one word of Jesus’ earthly death or rebirth. You not only haven’t read Doherty, you haven’t read Paul, at least not without dark, Gospel-colored glasses. Your ignorance of the true contents of the NT is vast, indeed!
Okay, enough bullshit is enough! You are appallingly ignorant of the subject matter of this debate! You know next to nothing at all! Why did you lie about reading Doherty? Why??
Hell, you haven’t even been reading this thread! I’ve dealt with the bogus claim that Josephus spoke of a “brother of Jesus” a few times already! For Bob’s sake, PLEASE TRY TO READ, AND READ CAREFULLY FOR A CHANGE! Once again, I URGE you to read Doherty’s full book or his full site, or AT LEAST read: JOSEPHUS UNBOUND:
Reopening the Josephus Question
PLEASE! OH, PLEASE!! READ FOR A CHANGE!!!
No, sir, you are profoundly ignorant of modern Christian thinking. Cephas and James were contemporaries of Paul who knew Jesus as well as Paul did, which is to say, not at all! How can you now know this!
Truer words were never spoken…
Wrong, wrong, wrong on all counts. Paul never made any true historical reference to any earthly, historical Jesus. He made reference only to the heavenly Christ and to historical facts of HIS OWN time and milieu! READ DOHERTY AND GET IT THROUGH YOUR OVER-THICK SKULL!!
Let me briefly quote the author, Bernard Muller, whom I’ve never even heard of before now:
And the most significant fact he admits:
Well, that’s all the time that Muller’s worth for now. When you’ve finished actually reading Doherty, and it’s a flat-out lie to say you already have, based on your appalling ignorance of all of his most important points, I’ll debate Muller with you. Not before.
For now, I’ll just re-submit more highly relevant text that you haven’t read or have foolishly ignored, in this instance from highly esteemed Christian scholar Burton Mack:
I want now to offer four criticisms of the quest for the historical Jesus, especially as it has been pursued in recent American scholarship, and then suggest a better approach to the examination of Christian beginnings. (1) A first criticism is that the quest has not produced any agreement about a textual data base from which to work. …
(2) A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (a lawyer for the defense), the pre-Markan miracles stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential. Thus the link is missing between the historical Jesus as reconstructed by scholars and the many figures of Jesus imagined and produced by early Christians. Since the quest for the historical Jesus has been pursued in the interest of explaining Christian origins, this missing link is a very serious consideration. It means, in fact, that the quest has failed. The object of the quest has purportedly been to remove the fantastic and miraculous features of the Christ myth and gospels from the “real Jesus of history,” but the more important problem for explaining Christian origins is to account for the diversity of mythic claims about him. No reconstruction of the historical Jesus has done or can do that.
(3) A third criticism is that the link between the teachings of Jesus on the one hand and the story of his crucifixion on the other is missing. None of the scholars that start with the sayings of Jesus has ever been able to account for the crucifixion of Jesus on the basis of those teachings. This means that something is wrong. The teachings and the crucifixion should make sense when put together, but they do not. This is a very serious criticism of the quest. It is also a very serious criticism of the narrative logic of the gospels where the teachings and the crucifixion are in fact interwoven. …
A fourth criticism is that the publication of books about the historical Jesus as well as the public discussion of them has assumed a purpose for the quest that is unreasonable and ill-conceived. …
Changing the Focus
This means that we need to start over with the quest for Christian origins. And the place to start is with the observation that the New Testament texts are not only inadequate for a Jesus quest, they are data for an entirely different phenomenon. They are not the mistaken and embellished memories of the historical person, but the myths of origin imagined by early Christians seriously engaged in their social experiments. They are data for early Christian mythmaking. The questions appropriate to these texts should be about the many Christian groups and movements in evidence, their particular social circumstances and histories, and the various social reasons they had for imagining a teacher in so many different ways. To read these texts only in the interest of the quest to know the historical Jesus has been to misread them, to misuse them. They simply do not contain the secrets of the historical Jesus for which scholars have been searching.
Look, this is nothing but a gangbang by cretinous yahoos. No one here, save Polycarp, is worth my time. I don’t have the time or desire to debate in a ignoramus-run 15-to-1 pile-on.
In other words, the best cite you could come up with was a web site full of random quotes taken out of context and are having your butt handed to you. So you quit.
Again, you keep insisting that Porphyry rejects that Jesus was a real man, when, in fact he does not. He merely rejects that he was anything except a man who died as the criminal he was.
Now according to your own cite. There were a lot of men named Jesus who had knowledge of Eastern Philosopy living in Galilee at the time. If any of these men were Hindu then they would have claimed to have been God’s son.
That is all the OP was asking.
You are still arguing because the myth originated in the East there is no way Jesus ever lived. Can you not see that your own cites provide the evidence of Jesus’ existence?
