Mithra and Jesus

[Tassman]

the evidence for authorship of the Gospels: A: unanimous testimony of the early church fathers indicates that these books recieved their titles very early.
B: The christians must have known who wrote these books because they viewed these documents as authorities on Jesus' life. they must have known who wrote them.
C: except for John, these books are never attributed to another author.

evidence for authorship of Paul's letters: Paul signed them.



there are only 2 pieces of evidence that I have ever come across for a post-70 AD date for the Gospels
1: Mark mentions the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem
2: similarity between the Gospels (synoptic Gospels) seems to be best explained by the theory that Mark was the first Gospel written because the other 2 Gospels may have been derived from them or use it as a source

okay the problem with premise 1 is that this is a prediction made in Mark. this sort of prediction was very common.
premise 2 would not be a problem even if it were true because makr was a disciple of Simon Peter. Peter was a member of the inner circle. Mathew however was not a part of the inner circle and did not personally witness all of the events, so it would make sense to rely on Peter's testimony when he wrote the greek form of Matthew. Luke was not an eye-witness to any of the events in his Gospel. he never personally knew Jesus.

even if premise 2 were true, it does nothing to prove a post-70 AD date if premise 1 were disproven (as it has been)



I hope that tirade on Paul that I debunked in my above post was not your only piece of evidence.

Your ignorance is embarrassing, based more on confabulation than research. See my reply to Dr. Jack Bauer, above, re dating and authorship.

As for the Pauline mystery religion concepts in your previous post, you should have at least done me the courtesy of reading through my extensive posts on the subject. in this thread. Your comments and self-declared "knockdown arguments" have all been covered by me already and the fact that you make them at all shows you haven't followed the history of this discussion. Either that or you haven't grasped the argument. Also, your claims show a sad tendency to rely too much on Tektonics nonsense with its "educated guesses" and determination to keep the bible inerrant at all costs. Yes, I too read Tektonics...it's always good for a laugh!

However, despite the above, I will reply to your repetitive arguments such as they are, when I get the time. I don't want to disappoint my public.

[Glenn P]

How you love setting up false expectations, Dr. Jack Bauer. It is not a circular argument. Given that there is no evidence of Jesus as an historical person then there is no reason to regard Jesus as an historical figure. It is a statement of fact. NO ONE outside the gospels makes reference to an historical Jesus and NO ONE refers to written gospels before well into the second century. We cannot tell who their authors were or whether the earlier authors of the epistles were familiar with such documents or regarded Jesus as historical at all.

None of this expressed view matters here. Your claim is that we know the Gospels were written after AD70. So I'll keep reading to see if you comment on that.

Even the first clear quotations from the gospels, by Justin Martyr in around 150 CE, merely refer to "memoirs of the apostles," giving them no specific authorship. That didn’t come until 180 CE when Irenaeus of Lyons ascribed authorship to the gospels and claimed there must be four of them because “there are four corners of the earth and four winds”…so much for assessing historical accuracy on the basis of scholarship.

So far, no evidence for your claim.

Scholars like Raymond E Brown, representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996, gave 70 CE as the date for Mark with the other gospels following.

That is not the consensus, actually. The consensus is for Mark written between 55-68, with the majority of (non-conservative) opting for a dtate between 60-68. Your first piece of evidence therefore fails.

Conservative Christian scholars like to date them earlier so as to claim eyewitness reporting (i.e. faith rather than scholarship), but even the consensus dating provides problems. It presents a scenario whereby the gospels’ Jesus story fails to register on the wider Christian consciousness for almost a hundred years after it was first committed to paper, which is surely not feasible. So, really, a generally later dating is necessary, perhaps with Mark coming no earlier than the year 90. The simple fact is that it is more convincing to date the gospels later than earlier.

So your only evidence is an unspported claim about the consensus? That's it?

Noted.

[Tassman]

None of this expressed view matters here. Your claim is that we know the Gospels were written after AD70. So I'll keep reading to see if you comment on that.

No, I did NOT claim that “we know” the gospels were written after 70 CE. Nobody knows. The likely dates when the gospels were written vary significantly, and the evidence for any of the dating, early or late, is minimal.

And, what I “expressed” DOES “matter here”. You have a genius for missing the few essential facts available. No one outside the gospels makes reference to an historical Jesus and no one refers to any written gospels before well into the second century. The first clear quotations from the gospels, by Justin Martyr, around 150 CE, refer to "memoirs of the apostles," giving them no specific authorship. This didn’t come until 180 CE when Irenaeus of Lyons ascribed authorship to the gospels. These are all clues to dating the gospels Dr. Jack Bauer.

We don’t know who the gospels real authors were, despite Irenaeus, but it seems apparent that the authors of the epistles, which were definitely earlier, were not familiar with the Jesus of history as presented by the gospels.

So far, no evidence for your claim.

It’s NOT a claim I made. But, typical tactics of yours to make misleading statements of this sort.

That is not the consensus, actually. The consensus is for Mark written between 55-68, with the majority of (non-conservative) opting for a dtate between 60-68. Your first piece of evidence therefore fails.

You have not backed your own assertion and yet you are saying, without providing evidence that noted scholar Raymond E. Brown is wrong or lying about the consensus dating of the gospels. He is generally regarded as occupying the centre ground in the field of biblical studies, opposing the literalism of fundamentalist Christians but not carrying his conclusions as far as liberal scholars. I would trust his assessment of likely gospel dating as being as good as any for the purpose of debate. Dr. Jack Bauer, of course, knows better or so you imply without support.

So your only evidence is an unspported claim about the consensus? That's it?

It is not an unsupported claim. It is a claim supported by the biblical scholar, Raymond E Brown in “An Introduction to the New Testament” in 1996.

And is your claim of earlier dating supported by anything other than wishful thinking? Conservative Christians like you prefer to date the gospels earlier so as to claim eyewitness reporting but there is NO evidence for doing so.

Even the later consensus dating of the four gospels creates the problem of failing to register on the wider Christian consciousness for almost a hundred years after their composition. Why would this be? This fact alone would lead one to date the gospels even later than the consensus…unless you want to argue that they were irrelevant to Christians and ignored for 100 years in favor of the epistles, which we know had influence over the early church.

Noted.

My dear Dr Jack Bauer why should I care what you note or don’t note

[Glenn P]

No, I did NOT claim that “we know” the gospels were written after 70 CE. Nobody knows. The likely dates when the gospels were written vary significantly, and the evidence for any of the dating, early or late, is minimal.

You said: "We have no idea at all of their authorship OR their dating...except that they were after 70 CE."

What does this mean? That we should believe that they were written after AD 70? If so, no need to quibble, that's good enough. Let's put that claim on trial.

It’s NOT a claim I made. But, typical tactics of yours to make misleading statements of this sort.

See above. I'll just keep on keeping you honest byt pressing for reason to believe yor claims.

You have not backed your own assertion and yet you are saying, without providing evidence that noted scholar Raymond E. Brown is wrong or lying about the consensus dating of the gospels.

Nobody claimed that he is lying, but you and I have been over this before where we both accepted that there's no consensus that the Gospels were all written after AD70. Since that has already transpired between us, why would I now consider Raymond Brown's undemonstrated claim to be correct?

He is generally regarded as occupying the centre ground in the field of biblical studies, opposing the literalism of fundamentalist Christians but not carrying his conclusions as far as liberal scholars.

This is a question of dating. What the heck does "literalism" have to do with anything. Does he present the reader with a survey of dates given by scholars across the spectrum? If he does not, pelase say so, and then explain the manner in which he demonstrates his claim about the consensus.

Thanks.

[mig_killer2]

Your ignorance is embarrassing, based more on confabulation than research. See my reply to Dr. Jack Bauer, above, re dating and authorship.

As for the Pauline mystery religion concepts in your previous post, you should have at least done me the courtesy of reading through my extensive posts on the subject. in this thread. Your comments and self-declared "knockdown arguments" have all been covered by me already and the fact that you make them at all shows you haven't followed the history of this discussion. Either that or you haven't grasped the argument. Also, your claims show a sad tendency to rely too much on Tektonics nonsense with its "educated guesses" and determination to keep the bible inerrant at all costs. Yes, I too read Tektonics...it's always good for a laugh!

However, despite the above, I will reply to your repetitive arguments such as they are, when I get the time. I don't want to disappoint my public.

Im sorry that I dont have time to read through ~50 pages of material before I have to leave. but you seemed to have plenty of time when you responded to dr. Jack bauer.

[mig_killer2]

amnouy, perhaps you can at least tell me on which pages you had this alleged discussion with Dr. Jack Bauer?

[mig_killer2]

Amnouy, will you respond to my other points?

[Adrift]

The gospel accounts and the late epistles like 2 Peter are irrelevant to the mythicist theory because by the time they were written the historicizing of Jesus had begun…transforming Jesus Christ from a mystery religion deity into a flesh and blood one.

Amnouy, from your posts you neither seem insane nor an imbecile, so forgive me if I can't comprehend how an intelligent person can seriously make a claim that the Gospels must be completely discounted when building a case for the historicity of Jesus. The ONLY good purpose to conclude that the Gospels are fabrications of an historic Jesus is because you're whole theory hinges on the concept... It's already a pitifully weak theory when you twist Paul's epistles to fit the theory. Adding the Gospels would annihilate it.

You obviously haven’t been following the debate over many pages in this thread where this has been made very clear. Both the mystery religions and Pauline theology, with their emphasis on personal salvation, union with God and ultimate eternal life with Him…with the “good news” being revealed by direct revelation from the God most high…have clearly arisen within the Hellenistic world view with its proliferation of salvation deities that were so popular in Paul’s time. The Pauline Jesus was part of that tradition.

I have been following the debate, and I agree with those who've proven you wrong. Paul is not so utterly Hellenized that he can't tell the difference between the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecy and a pagan mystery religion.

Where do the Jewish opponents argue that Jesus’ body was stolen? References please!

mig answered this, but I'll go into a bit more detail for you.

Matthew 28:11

Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.' "And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble." And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

© source where applicable

I don't mean to call you out, but I'm actually a bit surprised you're not familiar with this... Its a very very common charge, especially for those who believe in the historical Jesus, but not in the resurrection. Maybe instead of discounting and ignoring the Gospels you should actually read them.

Yes, a much older tradition indeed …from God, in fact, not from eyewitnesses at all. Paul makes it abundantly clear that his “good news” has been received from NO man but by direct revelation of God…as is the case with all mystery religion deities who are not based in history but operate outside of time.

What Paul “received” was by divine revelation not from eyewitnesses but from God, from whence ALL his revelations regarding Christ Jesus came…as he himself states in his epistles and the “rising on the third day was based on scripture not eyewitness accounts.

Your first sentence makes little sense and none of this rebuts the linguistic phrasings of the "that's" which signify a retelling of an older, then circulating, saying. mig's astonishment is justified when asking if you really think Paul is citing himself. As for the rest, why is it so hard for you to imagine that Paul could have received the Gospel account from the post-resurrected Jesus AND that this agrees with the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. Better yet, since Paul was an adversary of the early Way church, its clearly not improbable that he already had a general understanding of the Gospel message before receiving the "good news" from Jesus himself. I mean... if Paul made up this whole Jesus thing, who the heck are the Apostles and why are they in the picture at all?

All the so-called “seeings’ of Jesus by Peter, the twelve, the five hundred, James, the apostles were ALL in the form of a vision…in the same manner that Jesus revealed himself to Paul. These were not historical occurrences and thus they are perfectly in keeping with the Hellenistic mystery religion deities.

What? What are you talking about? You MUST discount the Gospels and Acts and hell, the whole New Testament to come to this conclusion. People aren't usually able to touch visions or see the same vision in mass groups. You honestly think that when Paul says that over 500 saw the risen Christ at the same time (and some are still alive at his writing) they were all sharing a vision? This isn't logical Amnouy.

The presence of eye witnesses who could confirm the crucifixion and resurrection can be found in the gospels as the Jesus tradition evolves, but not in the earlier epistles…which is the whole point of the mythicist argument.

So... its ok for there to be eyewitness accounts to the later Gospels, but not the earlier Epistles...? Seems to me that goes some ways in proving the earliness of both Gospels and Epistles, furthermore, the Gospels are not the only place that eyewitness accounts can be relied upon for the Gospel record. I know you know this, so either you've forgotten (which is ok, the Bible is a big book) or you're not being completely forthcoming.

The crucifixion and resurrection in Paul occur outside of time and space…they are of eternal significance as per the various saving acts in the other mystery religions. Paul NEVER places the crucifixion in history, never mentions when it occurred, where it occurred or how it occurred.

Yes this is your assertion. I find it lacking. There's no real way for you to prove this assertion and the evidence against it seems insurmountable to me.

Joseph of Arimathea is not mentioned in Paul and nor is a tomb. Such historical details and legend do not belong in the epistles…only in the later gospels as the Jesus figure evolves into a flesh and blood figure of history.

How many times do people have to repeat to you that we're talking about 2 entirely different pieces of transmission between the Gospels and the Epistles. You are purposely not seeing this because it goes a long way in refuting your pet theory. Besides that, It makes very little sense for specific yet non-notable names and places to be added to a legendary account. What benefit to legend would it be to include a member of the Sanhedrin in the Gospel account? This is the same group who pushed for Christ's death and was a thorn in the early church's side... We see this animosity against the Jewish religious leaders in the Gospels, yet all four Gospels, written by different people at different times mention Joseph of Arimathea. If you're this cynical and skeptical about history why not forget everything you know about it and use Earl Doherty's historical methodology to rewrite it. It'd make great tabloid news.

Depends whether you trust the account in John or the synoptic gospels…they are contradictory. But in any event, being gospels they are irrelevant to the Pauline mystery religion argument.

Seeing as there is no Pauline mystery religion... maybe you're right, but to call first century documents that attest to the historicity of Jesus irrelevant seems the height of naivety.

Gospel occurances and therefore Irrelevant!

Absolutely inconceivable that you say "irrelevant" and hand wave the whole 1st century Gospel testimony because it doesn't work well with your paradigm. Boggles the mind.

Only among the Pharisees! Unlike the Sadducees who didn’t believe in resurrection,

And?... I didn't say that every Jew believed in the resurrection, merely that it wasn't an alien concept.

the Pharisees were Hellenized Jews who accepted many Hellenistic concepts like resurrection. And, Paul himself, as a Pharisee was also influenced by the Hellenistic concepts of the mystery religions as is evident from his epistles and theology.

As mig pointed out, this isn't a Hellenistic concept.

Isaiah 26:19

Your dead will live;
Their corpses will rise
You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy,
For your dew is as the dew of the dawn,
And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits.

© source where applicable

Ezekiel 37:12

"Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. "Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. "I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD.'"

© source where applicable

Daniel 12:2

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

© source where applicable

Paul never refers to Christ’s “FLESHLY death and resurrection”. And, when he does use the term “flesh” it is never direct but always oblique, a circumlocution, as per “according to the flesh” or “in the realm of the flesh”, even though it would be simple to be direct in the Greek. Obviously Paul uses language this way for a purpose.

Its only vague because you're painting it vague in order to shoehorn your interpretation. Its not vague at all.

It does no such thing. "from the dead" refers to “according to scripture” which is being fulfilled outside of time and space as an eternal act of significance to man.

"on the third day" specifically points to a moment in actual history. The whole account is in accordance with scripture and matches Jesus' prophetic words about himself. Its not outside time and space and nowhere is it indicated that its meant to be taken as outside time and space.

He speaks of the “coming of Christ”…not a second coming or “return”. For Paul Christ was never on earth in the first place, so he couldn't return. But, according to Paul Jesus will come (and rather soon he wrongly thought.)

When you make statements like this I find it hard to believe you've actually read the Bible.

Paul talked with the Jerusalem Church…three years after Paul was converted, so he was not exactly in a hurry to get the Jesus story from the “horse’s mouth”

So? And I'd argue that Jesus is the horse's mouth...

and we do not know what beliefs the ultra-conservative, law orientated Jerusalem Church had about Jesus. We DO know that James and the Jerusalem Church were strong proponents of the continued validity of the Mosaic laws.

And? What's your point?

Nor do we know what the Jerusalem Church thought about the “saving events” contained in the gospels, (i.e. if they ever occurred or if Jesus was even a real figure divine or otherwise)… because the first gospel was not written until after the Jerusalem Church was scattered at the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE.

So you keep on saying. I really don't think it matters if the Gospels were written in 35 AD or 70 AD, the "saving elements" are the same in the Gospels and in Epistles. Paul claims to have met James who saw the resurrected Christ himself. I'm thinking that if Paul mentions Jesus' appearance to James, Paul's own meeting of James, and the inclusion of James name in his Epistles to begin with, it strongly suggests that they share a common belief in the "saving element".

Paul, himself, doesn’t refer to any physical events of Christ Jesus occurring anywhere

.
unbelievable that you keep repeating this...

Speculation, unsupported by any evidence.

Oh, you mean like the Jesus myth?

Well not quite.... You honestly think that the story of a dead messiah hung on a cross like a miserable, shameful crook/murderer would make the impact it did in first century Israel if there wasn't more to the story? Here's your evidence:

1Cor 15:9

For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

© source where applicable

And highly contradictory and only found in the gospels. They are a total mess actually.

Again, they are not only found in the Gospels... I even quoted to you where Paul mentions eyewitness accounts; and they are far from a total mess, rather the accounts offered in the Gospels are exactly what you'd expect if the accounts are true and are gathered from independent sources.

Paul doesn’t have a “Last Supper” he refers only to a “Lord’s Supper” which is NOT a story he received by eyewitness or by men at all because as he makes clear he received the story directly from the Lord: 1 Corinthians11:23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread…”

Ok

Caiaphas' role as high priest during Christ's crucification appears to be historical.

It does, doesn't it.

Really! How?

Because the "third-day" motif is a popular one in early Christian writings as scholars Edward Bode and Raymond Brown have pointed out, but as Brown put it "The basic time indication of the finding of the tomb was fixed in Christian memory before the possible symbolism in the three-day reckoning had yet been perceived".

Again, the later, evolving historisation of Jesus by the gospel writers has nothing to do with the argument that Jesus was, in the earliest Christian writings a mystery religion deity. There is no mention of Jesus as an historical figure in the authentic Pauline epistles.

I don't understand why you're more likely to believe that the Jesus story becomes more historical with time rather than less... one would expect a less historical Jesus with time as we see in the later Apocrypha. You're working backwards here.

Using Occam ’s razor would entail the simplest explanation for the Jesus of Paul, namely that he was not an historical figure. It is only by viewing Paul’s Jesus through the lens of the later gospels that one can find a figure of flesh and blood.

And its only viewing a Jesus discounting all other early written evidence, from the perspective of people viewing events 2000 years later, and then twisting Paul's words to fit their own preconceived notions that we find a mythical Jesus. This is not Occam's razor, this is a lot of hard work to get the history you want out of it.

And yet Paul never seeks them out in Jerusalem and seems to have made a point of avoiding them as much as possible. Paul’s direct rivals, the so-called “false apostles”, did not receive their message of salvation from any eyewitness accounts just as Paul didn’t. As with Paul himself, they received their revelations direct from “on high”.

Oh the drama come on Amnouy...
Paul saying he went to Arabia for 3 years is no reason to assume he was avoiding the Apostles... the guy had a lot to think about what with, you know, being blinded by the son of God, and finding out everything he thought he knew right was wrong... I'm thinking that it'd probably take me 3 years to sort it all out as well. And its hard to tell where you're going with this "false apostle" stuff... you mean the guys who "...comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached..."?

Oh and how does one define the difference between “physical language” and “visionary language”? ALL the mystery religions, including the Pauline one, use physical terminology in referring to the saving events of their deities.

It does no such thing. The fact that Paul uses “spiritual body” in referring to Jesus…except in the circumlocutions of the kata sarka (according to the flesh) references, which he employs in the fulfillment of scriptural prophecies… say exactly the opposite

GakuseiDon has gone a long way with you to counter this. And the Gospels corroborate a physical resurrection. I don't think there's anything I could say that would convince you that this is not so.

Nope! That is not the case.

Fraid so.

[Tassman]

You said: "We have no idea at all of their authorship OR their dating...except that they were after 70 CE."

What does this mean? That we should believe that they were written after AD 70? If so, no need to quibble, that's good enough. Let's put that claim on trial.

No, I have not said in this exchange that: "We have no idea at all of their authorship OR their dating...except that they were after 70 CE".

What I said was: “Scholars like Raymond E Brown, representing the general scholarly consensus, in 1996 gave 70 CE as the date for Mark with the other gospels following. Conservative Christian scholars like to date them earlier so as to claim eyewitness reporting”.

That’s what I said.

See above. I'll just keep on keeping you honest byt pressing for reason to believe yor claims.

Are you suggesting I am not honest, Dr. Jack Bauer?

Nobody claimed that he is lying, but you and I have been over this before where we both accepted that there's no consensus that the Gospels were all written after AD70. Since that has already transpired between us, why would I now consider Raymond Brown's undemonstrated claim to be correct?

We have not both accepted the lack of a consensus that the gospels were written after 70 CE.

This is a question of dating. What the heck does "literalism" have to do with anything. Does he present the reader with a survey of dates given by scholars across the spectrum? If he does not, pelase say so, and then explain the manner in which he demonstrates his claim about the consensus.

It is generally accepted that the gospels cannot be definitively dated. You think they were written early, as do most conservative Christians for confessional reasons. Most liberal scholars place them late because certain pointers indicate late dating, as I previously outlined. But no one can know for sure, therefore such a discussion is a waste of time.

[Glenn P]

No, I have not said in this exchange that: "We have no idea at all of their authorship OR their dating...except that they were after 70 CE".

Yes you did. I replied diorectly to it and quotd it.

This is where you said it, in this thread, right before I replied to you. Remember?

What I said was: “Scholars like Raymond E Brown, representing the general scholarly consensus, in 1996 gave 70 CE as the date for Mark with the other gospels following. Conservative Christian scholars like to date them earlier so as to claim eyewitness reporting”.

That’s what I said.

You said more than one thing. But I quoted you accurately. I haven't been presented with evidence that post-70 is a consensus. You gave none. Raymond Brown gave none.

Are you suggesting I am not honest, Dr. Jack Bauer?

Either than or your memory's not so good.

We have not both accepted the lack of a consensus that the gospels were written after 70 CE.

This is your game again.... trying to force me to delve into the records of our exchanges. Since I lack the will to do so, I'll simply say fine - if you do think there's a consensus view that the Gospels were not written until after AD70, I'll refrain from accepting that claim because of the lack of evidence for it.

It is generally accepted that the gospels cannot be definitively dated. You think they were written early, as do most conservative Christians for confessional reasons.

You're in no position to say this. I know of know confession that makes any reference tot he dating of the Gospels. And I find the arguments for late dating, possibly motivated by religious skepticism, to be lacking.

[Tassman]

Yes you did. I replied diorectly to it and quotd it.

This is where you said it, in this thread, right before I replied to you. Remember?
You said more than one thing. But I quoted you accurately. I haven't been presented with evidence that post-70 is a consensus. You gave none. Raymond Brown gave none.
Either than or your memory's not so good.
This is your game again.... trying to force me to delve into the records of our exchanges. Since I lack the will to do so, I'll simply say fine - if you do think there's a consensus view that the Gospels were not written until after AD70, I'll refrain from accepting that claim because of the lack of evidence for it.
You're in no position to say this. I know of know confession that makes any reference tot he dating of the Gospels. And I find the arguments for late dating, possibly motivated by religious skepticism, to be lacking.

Give it a rest, Dr. Jack Bauer.

[Tassman]

uh huh. evidence plz?

Sorry for the delay...I'm especially busy at work. I've snipped some repitions.

It is important to note that we have one, and only one, source of information about the life of Jesus and that is the Christian Gospels. The Gospels are the sole source of information about this figure; everything that we "know" about "him" depends on these sources. There is virtually no evidence of an historical figure in the early epistles and what there is is ambiguous.

The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it. The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction. Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures. Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically.

The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record. The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life. Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person. There is not any writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime.

Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea but NOTHING about Jesus. All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims.

There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories. There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the first three centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh".

The only similiarities between hellenistic ideas and Pauline theology was that there is some similiarity between Philo and Paul. the only reason there are similiarities is because their common source was the Old Testament.

The concept of the mysterion is at the core of Pauline writings and many verses portray Christianity as a mystery religion. His entire “gospel” was a mystery: “... that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel ...” (Ephesians 6:19).

The Christian fathers used many terms common to the mystery religions. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, Syria, a prominent Church father (he died ca. 110 CE), wrote to the Ephesians and called them “initiates”: “... you are ... fellow-initiates with the apostle Paul ...” Clement of Alexandria invited Gentiles to be initiated in the “holy mysteries” of Christianity: “Then you will have the vision of my God, and will be initiated in those holy mysteries of Christianity, and will taste the joys that are hidden away in heaven ...” Clement called Christianity the “truly sacred mysteries”: “He the Christian initiate saw the light and a vision the initiates of the mystery religions saw the light and a vision, he was sanctified by initiation, and Jesus marked the initiate with his seal: ‘O Truly sacred mysteries! O pure light! In the blaze of torches I have a vision of heaven and of God. I become holy by initiation.’ The Lord Jesus reveals the mysteries; he marks the worshipper with his seal ...” Christians were marked symbolically with the seal of the Lord, like the Dionysians were marked with the seal of Dionysus.

Paul died, according to our best estimates, around the year 64 C.E. The first Gospel was not written until the early 70's according to the consensus of liberal scholars. Paul never had a chance to read the Easter story in any Gospel. The tragedy of later Christian history is that we read Paul through the lens of the Gospels. Thus we have both distorted Paul and also confused theology.

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and the Gospel of Matthew say that the sanhedrin and Jewish authorities accused the disciples of stealing the body

So, nothing from the early Christian writings, as I thought!

you think he's merely citing his own beliefs? okay, then why does Paul use the phrase "according to the scriptures", a phrase that he uses no where else in his epistles? its because he's quoting a Pre-Pauline tradition.

So you think…based on what? It is far more likely that Paul, as with his entire “gospel” is basing it on divine revelation and the scripture…and not from the hearsay of men. He specifically says his “gospel’ is based on no man in Galatians and elsewhere.

the aramaic creed he cites argues that this was according to the scriptures, probably because they saw how Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. again, the phrase "according to the scriptures" is non-pauline. he usually uses "as it is written"

Really! And this is based on...... ?

so you think these were all visions? that's a good one. the only revelation that can be considered "visions" were Stephen's vision of jesus and possibly Paul's appearance. However, 1 corinthians clearly says this is a physical resurrection because the word "soma" is never used to describe anything non-physical in Paul's letters, and "pneumatikon" is never used to describe anything that is spiritual in substance. "soma pneumatikon" or "spiritual body" is used to describe a physical body that it spiritual in orientation, liek the bible is a spiritual book

Yes! Of course "just visions" otherwise it would not be consistent with the rest of the Pauline literature. But there is evidence to support this position.:

Notice that 1 Corinthians 15 passage never mentions the time or place of any of these appearances. The most basic documentation is missing. As for the “seeings:

'he appeared to Cephas' The word for 'appeared' is 'ophthe'. This is used a few times in the New Testament and it is used for other 'appearances' to Paul and Peter. If we look at those other appearances to Paul and Peter, we can see what Paul meant by 'appeared', which he uses so many times in 1 Cor. 15.

Matthew 17:3 . Moses and Elijah 'appeared' to Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration. Were Moses and Elijah bodily resurrected when they 'appeared' to Peter? If they were, what happened to their bodies? Did they die again? If they were not bodily resurrected when they 'appeared' to Peter, why is it beyond all doubt that Jesus was bodily resurrected when he 'appeared' to Peter?

In 2 Corinthians 12:1-7, Paul boasts of the revelations he has received. He went up to the third heaven (further evidence that Paul believed in the purely Hellenist concept of a multi tiered universe) and heard and saw all manner of things. In fact, nowhere in Paul's letters or in the 3 accounts of his conversion in Acts, does Paul or Luke ever state that Paul saw a bodily Jesus.

He saw a bright light and heard a voice. A vision - not a physical body - exactly as the use of 'ophthe' in 1 Corinthians 15 demands. And also identical to the conversion experiences in the Elysian Mysteries where the initiates experienced a "bright light" of personal revelation.

In short, there is NO evidence of a physical Jesus in the “little creed” of 1 Corinthian 15

and its a moot point because Paul was not writing a biography of Jesus. also the author of Luke and Acts was a personal companion of Paul. Mark was a disciple of Peter, with whom paul was personally acquainted.

Luke/Acts cannot be trusted as history or biography, especially in relation to Paul. I can provide ample evidence if you want.

Strangely Paul, in a letter saying what was of first importance to people who doubted that the resurrection had happened, could not be bothered to mention any of the "proofs" that the Gospels , 20 or 30 years later, would give. Perhaps he didn't know of them. Perhaps he didn't think that the Gospel stories were important. Biography or not, it is simply not feasible that Paul would not mention at least some of the details surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection which are the core of his theology.

In turn the Gospel writers leave out such convincing evidences as an appearance to 500 brethren or an appearance to James, the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. The appearances described by Paul clash head-on with the appearances in the Gospels. Remember that Jesus could not have appeared to the 'twelve' as Paul said, as Judas was dead.

the hellenistic mystery religions' gods save us from what again? they dont save us from sin, they usually save us from physical death.

And the wages of sin are death. What is your point? The gods of the Greek mystery religions offered salvation from Hell with many believing that when a truly righteous person dies his soul leaves his body and joins the eternal company of his god. The point of the mystery religions was personal salvation, union with god and eternity with him. It is the same in Paul’s Christian mystery religion. There are variations in all of them.

1: they are not irrelevant because the Gospel authors are closely tied to Paul of Tarsus.
2: how are they contradictory?
3: how do contradictions dispell their reliability?

There is NO evidence that the gospel authors were closely tied to Paul. None! He only visited Jerusalem twice. We don’t even know who the gospel authors were or when they wrote. The only possible connection is Luke/ Acts which is totally discredited as reliable biography or history. We do not know what beliefs the ultra-conservative, law orientated Jerusalem Church had about Jesus. We DO know that James and the Jerusalem Church were strong proponents of the continued validity of the Mosaic laws in opposition to Paul.

The Pharisees were hellenized Jews? no, they weren't. The pharisees believed in a physical resurrection as taught in the Old Testament. The greeks however believed that the body was a sort of prison house for the soul. when your body died, your soul would live for eternity. the saducees however did not even believe in a life after death.

The physical resurrection was NOT taught in the OT. Traditional Judaism had the dead going to Sheol, the land of shadows. And correct, the Sadducees did not believe in life after death and they were mainstream Judaism (NOT the Pharisees) and continued to believe in Sheol throughout.

and how do you know that this is not being fulfilled here on earth?

What makes you think it is?

Paul thought that Jesus was never here on earth? then why does he say in Romans that Jesus was a descendent of David, and why does he say that he died on a cross in Philippians?

All mystery religion salvation deities had considerable variations. As a Hellenised Jew Paul’s mystery religion deity had to fulfill the prophecies “according to scripture”, but Paul never had these events occurring on earth. As for the Davidic Line as portrayed in the gospels, they are totally contradictory and end with Joseph, who was NOT supposed to be Jesus’ father…God was.

As for the Messianic prophecies they were NOT fulfilled in the gospel’s Jesus. The expected messiah was to be: “a descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Jeremiah 23:5), observant of Jewish law (Isaiah 11:2-5), a righteous judge (Jeremiah 33:15), and a great military leader”.

Jews, and I strongly suspect neither did the Jerusalem Church did not believe that the messiah will be divine. A fundamental difference between Judaism and later Christianity is the Jewish conviction that God is so essentially different from and beyond humanity that he could never become a human.

Philippians 2:8 clearly says that Jesus died on a cross.

Yes! But not in time or place! It was an eternal event as per the mystery religions. Note that Paul does not say Christ BECAME man, but had the APPEARANCE of man (Philippians 2:8Being found in appearance as a man, (O)He humbled Himself by becoming (P)obedient to the point of death, even (Q)death on a cross). Paul is never straightforward about seemingly straightforward things related to “flesh”. He always uses circumlocutions like “according to the flesh” took on the “appearance” of man, in the “realm of the flesh” etc

This is perfectly consistent with the mystery religion concept of the savior deity’s saving acts occurring outside time and space. The Hellenist’s view was that the savior, whether Osiris’s scattered/reassembled body or Mithras’s slaying of the bull occurred in an eternal dimension. The same applies to Paul’s Christ.

he just says he recieved it from the Lord. the greek "apo" is pretty ambiguous and can mean that he recieved it indirectly from the Lord.

No it can’t. It is not in the least ambiguous. It is the essence of Paul's Apostleship that he received his commission and gospel directly from the Lord and from NO man.

Im curious, is your source for these arguments Rook Hawkins?

I don't know of Rook Hawkins.

For the basic outline of the mythicist position check out Earl Doherty’s excellent web site:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

Books to read:

Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ: (Alvar Ellegard)

Deconstructing Jesus: (Robert M. Price)

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: (Frank R. Zindler)

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: (Robert M. Price)

The Pagan Christ: (Tom Harpur)

The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts: (Robert M. Price)

G A Wells: "The Jesus Myth" and "The Jesus Legend"

Anything by Robert M Price is interesting as is Richard Carrier on web and it’s worth a glance at the web site of Acharya S in passing.

the deities resurrection (if there are any besides osiris) are not saving anyone from Sin. Pauline theology clearly says that Jesus was saving us from sin.

And the wages of sin is………? As with all mystery religions the believer is being saved from death and granted eternal life with the transcendent god in the uppermost heaven.

dude, you can look up 1 corinthians 15 in the original greek at studylight.org, he clearly says "soma pneumatikon". "pneumatikos" is never used to say that something is a spirit or spirit like, and "soma" always stresses the physicality of something.

I suggest you look at Studylight Org’s "Statement of Faith" and ask yourself, is this organization likely to provide objective, dispassionate, unbiased information or is it going to provide biblical interpretations based on the preconception of an infallible bible in an attempt to win souls? I think the latter.

Research hint: Always check your sources.

yep, that's the case. Jesus' crucifixion is multiply attested.

Nope! As an historical event it has only been attested in the gospels, which are Christian propaganda, interdependent, contradictory, late and therefore NOT reliable history.

There is NO other attestation of Jesus’ crucifixion. None! Anywhere!

The epistles never place the death and resurrection of Christ in time or place which is more in keeping with the saving activities of the mystery religion deities, which also take place outside of time and place. So, for Paul the crucifixion and resurrection, which was the essence of his faith, was not an historical event on earth.

[MaxVel]

Amnouy -

Upon re-reading pages 34 onwards of this thread (and some earlier posts) my present thoughts on your thesis and on your methodology and rationality have been amply confirmed.

I will no longer be responding to your posts on this topic, as there are many matters of substance from those posts still unaddressed; as you have failed to present anything substantial in the way of evidence for the key points of your thesis; and as questions over your reasoning and ability to fairly deal with differing views remain.

Thank you for raising an interesting topic, and for in so doing allowing me the opportunity of investigating the grounds for belief in a historical Jesus. Thank you for re-confirming to me that my convictions on the matter are the most reasonable and best-supported ones.

I wish you well, and hope that you will purchase and read the book I recommended, it really does provide a wealth of references on both sides of the debate.

[mig_killer2]

and you claimed that I should be embarrased at my ignorance. I can only say the same about you.

Sorry for the delay...I'm especially busy at work. I've snipped some repitions.

It is important to note that we have one, and only one, source of information about the life of Jesus and that is the Christian Gospels. [/QUOTE]

all 4 Gospels count as 1 source? no buddy, they're 4 different sources.

The Gospels are the sole source of information about this figure; everything that we "know" about "him" depends on these sources.

really? but we know quite a few things about his life from Paul's letters. taken from bede's library

Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galations 4:4)
Jesus was referred to as "Son of God". (1 Cor. 1:9)
Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galations 4:6)
Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
Jesus taught that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (1 Cor. 9:14)
Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)
Jesus had a brother named James. (Galations 1:19)
Jesus initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
Jesus' death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Cor. 5:7)
The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Cor. 2:8)
Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)
Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
Jesus died by crucifixion. (philippians 2:8)
Jesus was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)

There is virtually no evidence of an historical figure in the early epistles and what there is is ambiguous.

really? perhaps you can read that list once again?

The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it.

ahh, I've been waiting for some evidence of this Q-markan hypothesis

The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction. Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures. Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically.

its too bad you took no time to back this up with any citations or other evidence and merely stated your own assertions. all I have to say in response is "nuh uh!".

The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record.

you did not expound on this statement. "NUH UH!"

The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life.

really? perhaps you can read that list once again? unless of course you're a big fan of bob price and wish to say that 1 Corinthians 15 is an interpolation.

Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person. There is not any writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime.

its too bad you didn't back this up with anything beyond your own assertions. "NUH UH!"

Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus.

perhaps because Jesus was seen as nothing more than some fringy blasphemous cult leader by people like Philo and other historians/philosophers of his time?

Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea but NOTHING about Jesus.

perhaps because Jesus was not very important? fringy blasphemous cult leader?

All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims.

1: why does a source have to be non-christian?
2: how do you know that Josephus' 2 writings about Jesus were a forgery?
3: Tacitus was a very reliable roman historian. he woulden't have given into hearsay when writing his history. unless you wish to make the incredibly circular claim "well, Tacitus usually was reliable, but this time he wasn't" like kalot666 made in his 2 videos promoting the Jesus myth

There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories. There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the first three centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh".

The controversy was whether Jesus was the christ, not necessarily whether he existed. now if there was a tomb, then it had to have been empty because 1 Corinthians says he was buried, and after three days raised from the dead in bodily form. Now, why are the Gospels themselves not evidence of early christian knowledge about the tomb?

The concept of the mysterion is at the core of Pauline writings and many verses portray Christianity as a mystery religion. His entire “gospel” was a mystery: “... that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel ...” (Ephesians 6:19).

so because the word "mystery" is used, you intend to build the case that Christianity borrowed from Pagan mystery cults? THAT'S LOL-TASTIC!

The Christian fathers used many terms common to the mystery religions. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, Syria, a prominent Church father (he died ca. 110 CE), wrote to the Ephesians and called them “initiates”: “... you are ... fellow-initiates with the apostle Paul ...” Clement of Alexandria invited Gentiles to be initiated in the “holy mysteries” of Christianity: “Then you will have the vision of my God, and will be initiated in those holy mysteries of Christianity, and will taste the joys that are hidden away in heaven ...” Clement called Christianity the “truly sacred mysteries”: “He the Christian initiate saw the light and a vision the initiates of the mystery religions saw the light and a vision, he was sanctified by initiation, and Jesus marked the initiate with his seal: ‘O Truly sacred mysteries! O pure light! In the blaze of torches I have a vision of heaven and of God. I become holy by initiation.’ The Lord Jesus reveals the mysteries; he marks the worshipper with his seal ...” Christians were marked symbolically with the seal of the Lord, like the Dionysians were marked with the seal of Dionysus.

no reference? this habit of yours of not providing references to quotes by people is getting annoying.

Paul died, according to our best estimates, around the year 64 C.E.

right. we know that from Clement of Rome

The first Gospel was not written until the early 70's according to the consensus of liberal scholars.

the consensus of scholars is not evidence. but if you wish to appeal to the majority of scholars, then why do you still propound this idea that Jesus was a non-historical figure? scholars overwhelmingly reject your thesis.

such hypocrisy

Paul never had a chance to read the Easter story in any Gospel. The tragedy of later Christian history is that we read Paul through the lens of the Gospels. Thus we have both distorted Paul and also confused theology.

assuming that Paul died after the composition of Mark's Gospel.

So, nothing from the early Christian writings, as I thought!

why does it have to be "early"?

So you think…based on what? It is far more likely that Paul, as with his entire “gospel” is basing it on divine revelation and the scripture…and not from the hearsay of men. He specifically says his “gospel’ is based on no man in Galatians and elsewhere.

a reference would be nice, but you completely dodged the point. did God give him a piece of writing? again, the phrase "according to the scriptures" is non-pauline"

Really! And this is based on...... ?

you can do a search of biblegateway.com and find out that Paul never uses the phrase "according to the scriptures".

Yes! Of course "just visions" otherwise it would not be consistent with the rest of the Pauline literature. But there is evidence to support this position.:

Notice that 1 Corinthians 15 passage never mentions the time or place of any of these appearances. The most basic documentation is missing. As for the “seeings:

'he appeared to Cephas' The word for 'appeared' is 'ophthe'. This is used a few times in the New Testament and it is used for other 'appearances' to Paul and Peter. If we look at those other appearances to Paul and Peter, we can see what Paul meant by 'appeared', which he uses so many times in 1 Cor. 15.

Matthew 17:3 . Moses and Elijah 'appeared' to Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration. Were Moses and Elijah bodily resurrected when they 'appeared' to Peter? If they were, what happened to their bodies? Did they die again? If they were not bodily resurrected when they 'appeared' to Peter, why is it beyond all doubt that Jesus was bodily resurrected when he 'appeared' to Peter?

In 2 Corinthians 12:1-7, Paul boasts of the revelations he has received. He went up to the third heaven (further evidence that Paul believed in the purely Hellenist concept of a multi tiered universe) and heard and saw all manner of things. In fact, nowhere in Paul's letters or in the 3 accounts of his conversion in Acts, does Paul or Luke ever state that Paul saw a bodily Jesus.

He saw a bright light and heard a voice. A vision - not a physical body - exactly as the use of 'ophthe' in 1 Corinthians 15 demands. And also identical to the conversion experiences in the Elysian Mysteries where the initiates experienced a "bright light" of personal revelation.

In short, there is NO evidence of a physical Jesus in the “little creed” of 1 Corinthian 15

in philippians 3:21, Paul says that our resurrection bodies will be like Jesus' resurrection body. 1 Corinthians 15 says "it is sown a physical body, but is raised a spiritual body" it is sown a "soma yuxikon" and is raised "soma pneumatikon". "soma" as stated before is used to stress the physicality of something. "pneumatikon" is always used to describe something as spritual in orientation. Paul could have used "pneuma" which means spirit, but he didn't. he used "pneumtikon"

Luke/Acts cannot be trusted as history or biography, especially in relation to Paul. I can provide ample evidence if you want.

that would be nice


Strangely Paul, in a letter saying what was of first importance to people who doubted that the resurrection had happened, could not be bothered to mention any of the "proofs" that the Gospels , 20 or 30 years later, would give. Perhaps he didn't know of them. Perhaps he didn't think that the Gospel stories were important. Biography or not, it is simply not feasible that Paul would not mention at least some of the details surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection which are the core of his theology. [/QUOTE]

1: he did mention some details, but knowledge of such things was assumed.
2: *about the bolded text* why no references? you didn't even give the letter he wrote them in

In turn the Gospel writers leave out such convincing evidences as an appearance to 500 brethren or an appearance to James, the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. The appearances described by Paul clash head-on with the appearances in the Gospels. Remember that Jesus could not have appeared to the 'twelve' as Paul said, as Judas was dead.

There is a possible reference in the Gospel of matthew. However, "the twelve" is a title.

And the wages of sin are death. What is your point? The gods of the Greek mystery religions offered salvation from Hell with many believing that when a truly righteous person dies his soul leaves his body and joins the eternal company of his god. The point of the mystery religions was personal salvation, union with god and eternity with him. It is the same in Paul’s Christian mystery religion. There are variations in all of them.

and what's your evidence of this happening in hellenistic thought? Paul clearly believed in a physical resurrection of the dead as taught in the Old Testament. and again, you have to look at the underlying meaning of something to establish influence. superficial similarities between Paul and other hellenistic religions don't quite count.

There is NO evidence that the gospel authors were closely tied to Paul. None! He only visited Jerusalem twice.

there are several "we" passages in Acts

taken from wikipedia page on Acts of the Apostles

In addition to the authorship evidence provided by the ancient sources, some feel the text of Luke-Acts supports the conclusion that its author was a companion of Paul. First among such internal evidence are portions of the book which have come to be called the "'we' passages". Although the bulk of Acts is written in the third person, several brief sections of the book are written from a first-person perspective.[20] These "we" sections are written from the point of view of a traveling companion of Paul: e.g. "After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia", "We put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace"[21] Such passages would appear to have been written by someone who traveled with Paul during some portions of his ministry. Accordingly, some have used this evidence to support the conclusion that these passages, and therefore the entire text of the Luke-Acts, were written by a traveling companion of Paul's. The physician Luke would be one such person.

We don’t even know who the gospel authors were or when they wrote. The only possible connection is Luke/ Acts which is totally discredited as reliable biography or history.

how has the Gospel according to Luke been discredited as reliable history?

We do not know what beliefs the ultra-conservative, law orientated Jerusalem Church had about Jesus. We DO know that James and the Jerusalem Church were strong proponents of the continued validity of the Mosaic laws in opposition to Paul.

how do we know that James was opposing Paul again?

The physical resurrection was NOT taught in the OT. Traditional Judaism had the dead going to Sheol, the land of shadows. And correct, the Sadducees did not believe in life after death and they were mainstream Judaism (NOT the Pharisees) and continued to believe in Sheol throughout.

This is news to me cuz I've never heard this before. a source would be nice though.
but anyway, Jack Bauer already provided sources for the physicality of the resurrection as taught in the Old testament. maybe you should scroll up again

What makes you think it is?

what makes you think it isn't? what makes me think it is is that Paul lists 2 biographical details about Jesus that could not have happened in some sort of "spiritual realm"

All mystery religion salvation deities had considerable variations. As a Hellenised Jew Paul’s mystery religion deity had to fulfill the prophecies “according to scripture”, but Paul never had these events occurring on earth. As for the Davidic Line as portrayed in the gospels, they are totally contradictory and end with Joseph, who was NOT supposed to be Jesus’ father…God was.

*palm to the face* I didn't even bring up the geneologies of the Gospels. I brought up the fact that Romans says that Jesus was a descendent of David. you convienently ignored that point.

As for the Messianic prophecies they were NOT fulfilled in the gospel’s Jesus. The expected messiah was to be: “a descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Jeremiah 23:5), observant of Jewish law (Isaiah 11:2-5), a righteous judge (Jeremiah 33:15), and a great military leader”.

Jeremiah 33:15 says:
'In those days and at that time
I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David's line;
he will do what is just and right in the land.

Jews, and I strongly suspect neither did the Jerusalem Church did not believe that the messiah will be divine. A fundamental difference between Judaism and later Christianity is the Jewish conviction that God is so essentially different from and beyond humanity that he could never become a human.

source? even if the Jews didn't believe this, what makes it implausible?

Yes! But not in time or place! It was an eternal event as per the mystery religions. Note that Paul does not say Christ BECAME man, but had the APPEARANCE of man (Philippians 2:8Being found in appearance as a man, (O)He humbled Himself by becoming (P)obedient to the point of death, even (Q)death on a cross). Paul is never straightforward about seemingly straightforward things related to “flesh”. He always uses circumlocutions like “according to the flesh” took on the “appearance” of man, in the “realm of the flesh” etc

when Paul uses "flesh" to describe something, it usually is in discussion about the sin nature we inherited from Adam. however, you quickly seem to assume that if it doesn't give the exact location of an event, it must automatically be in the spiritual realm. why is this?

This is perfectly consistent with the mystery religion concept of the savior deity’s saving acts occurring outside time and space. The Hellenist’s view was that the savior, whether Osiris’s scattered/reassembled body or Mithras’s slaying of the bull occurred in an eternal dimension. The same applies to Paul’s Christ.

what did Osiris' or Mithra's "resurrection" save us from? oh, and BTW, there is not any evidence of a resurrection of mithra before 150 A.D

No it can’t. It is not in the least ambiguous. It is the essence of Paul's Apostleship that he received his commission and gospel directly from the Lord and from NO man.

I've seen some sources that say "apo" is ambigous. so niether I nor you can really say for sure whether Paul recieved it directly or indirectly from the Lord.

I don't know of Rook Hawkins.

with your methods, im surprised you've never heard of Rook hawkins. I assume you've heard of the "rational" response squad?

For the basic outline of the mythicist position check out Earl Doherty’s excellent web site:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

Books to read:

Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ: (Alvar Ellegard)

Deconstructing Jesus: (Robert M. Price)

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: (Frank R. Zindler)

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: (Robert M. Price)

The Pagan Christ: (Tom Harpur)

The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts: (Robert M. Price)

G A Wells: "The Jesus Myth" and "The Jesus Legend"

Anything by Robert M Price is interesting as is Richard Carrier on web and it’s worth a glance at the web site of Acharya S in passing.

did you refer me to Acharya S? LOL-TASTIC!

And the wages of sin is………? As with all mystery religions the believer is being saved from death and granted eternal life with the transcendent god in the uppermost heaven.

but it is non-physical. Paul's resurrection body was physical.

I suggest you look at Studylight Org’s "Statement of Faith" and ask yourself, is this organization likely to provide objective, dispassionate, unbiased information or is it going to provide biblical interpretations based on the preconception of an infallible bible in an attempt to win souls? I think the latter.

so you dont think that the original greek at studylight.org is the actual Textus receptus?

Research hint: Always check your sources.

Textus Receptus.

Nope! As an historical event it has only been attested in the gospels, which are Christian propaganda, interdependent, contradictory, late and therefore NOT reliable history.

Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Lucian, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, Peter, the author of Hebrews. you have not provided evidence of Interdependency in the Gospels, or contradictions in the Gospels

There is NO other attestation of Jesus’ crucifixion. None! Anywhere!

THAT'S LOL-TASTIC!

The epistles never place the death and resurrection of Christ in time or place which is more in keeping with the saving activities of the mystery religion deities, which also take place outside of time and place. So, for Paul the crucifixion and resurrection, which was the essence of his faith, was not an historical event on earth.

no evidence. NUH UH! and how could a non-historical being be the descendent of a historical being?

[Tassman]

Amnouy -

Upon re-reading pages 34 onwards of this thread (and some earlier posts) my present thoughts on your thesis and on your methodology and rationality have been amply confirmed.

I will no longer be responding to your posts on this topic, as there are many matters of substance from those posts still unaddressed; as you have failed to present anything substantial in the way of evidence for the key points of your thesis; and as questions over your reasoning and ability to fairly deal with differing views remain.

Thank you for raising an interesting topic, and for in so doing allowing me the opportunity of investigating the grounds for belief in a historical Jesus. Thank you for re-confirming to me that my convictions on the matter are the most reasonable and best-supported ones.

I wish you well, and hope that you will purchase and read the book I recommended, it really does provide a wealth of references on both sides of the debate.

There is little doubt that you’d have ever thought otherwise. For the religiously inclined faith takes precedence over facts in my experience. This is what tends to invalidate Christian scholarship.

Paul Tillich said: “fundamentalism destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth. Research is by definition open-ended. How can there be any sincere research -- for example, the historical Jesus question -- when the outcome is dictated in advance by one's faith? How can there be real open-minded research when you know already your faith will be borne out?”

Be honest…did you first react to the mythicist concepts I presented as an interesting theory to be seriously considered (as a scholar would, even if he was chose to demolish them later) or defend your religious beliefs by attacking…which you did from the very start with every discussion, not just this one.

But you are not alone. It’s standard procedure by the god-squad in TWeb and an interesting comment on the defensive nature of modern apologetics. That it feels the need to be defensive can only be good for the future of a world based increasingly on rational thinking rather than superstition (or supernaturalism, if you prefer).