Jews and the story book jesus

[robrecht]

Thank you for the compliment. I painted it.

Nice! Is there a story behind it? Who is that guy and why is his hair on fire?

[robrecht]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Has any one ever attempted to respond to this site with legitimate rebuttals?

I just Googled the guy's name and saw some people that have debated him, eg, Gary Habermas on the Resurrection and a Tektoonics website--I've seen both of those names mentione or linked here. I generally have no patience for apologetics, of any variety, unless someone is grossly misrepresenting a valid perspective. Apologetics typically stifles the continuing search for truth IMHO. But there's some important things I noticed there that I basically agree with, and other things are rather ridiculous. Something about Paul not existing and his letters being written in the 2nd century.

[yo lunch]

Nice! Is there a story behind it? Who is that guy and why is his hair on fire?

It's my interpretation of Jesus in the creation of stars emerging from the Nebula and being zapped by that reality with lightening. You see, the "miracle" of science tells us that stars were created that way millions of years ago, wheareas the Bible says the stars were "made also" as an afterthought somewhere within the 6-day Creation.

Thanks for asking.

[robrecht]

It's my interpretation of Jesus in the creation of stars emerging from the Nebula and being zapped by that reality with lightening. You see, the "miracle" of science tells us that stars were created that way millions of years ago, wheareas the Bible says the stars were "made also" as an afterthought somewhere within the 6-day Creation.

Thanks for asking.

More like billions of years ago; in the Bible on the 4th day, along with the sun and moon. When my oldest son was about 4 or 5, he was fascinated by the Big Bang and we also read the Creation narrative in Hebrew, just for fun. By the time we got to the Chapter Two, he said: "A talking snake, really? That's ridiculous!"

[yo lunch]

More like billions of years ago; in the Bible on the 4th day, along with the sun and moon. When my oldest son was about 4 or 5, he was fascinated by the Big Bang and we also read the Creation narrative in Hebrew, just for fun. By the time we got to the Chapter Two, he said: "A talking snake, really? That's ridiculous!"

Smart kid!

[robertb]

No, not so cool. I have not retracted what I said above, just put it in terms of the most fundamental dichotomy, to use your terminology. Only if you can convincingly answer the other extremely important historical- and source-critical questions can you successfully argue for the greater probability of the non-existence of Jesus, ie, a novelistic fabrication.

I didn't say you retracted it. I said that I was happy that you stopped asking me about it. Secondly, I told you that I am AGNOSTIC regarding the historicity of Jesus, which means exactly what I said it means. I am not arguing for either the existence, or non-existence. I am arguing that the evidence is insufficient to decide either way without first making assumptions that, themselves, go beyond the available evidence. However, it would be great to be able to answer this question, so that's why I am interested in seeing what people have to bring to the table. Perhaps something I have overlooked.

As I said above, I use the term broadly to include those source-critical scripture scholars who honestly (and effectively) embrace a historical-critical methodology. By this I exclude apologists, confessional theologians, homilists, or pastors who are primarily interested in the study of scripture for other motives. It is, of course, to be expected that many (if not most) people who seek to learn, master, exercise, and teach the historical critical study of scripture in fact never master the discipline or methodology sufficiently.

Ok, I'll keep this in mind when you use the word historian.

I more or less agree with the importance of the anti-disciple theme in Mark. In a very general sense, he is certainly part of a broadly sketched post-Pauline Christianity, with a few notable exceptions, eg, Davidic line, and within a much larger interest in narratives about the earthly Jesus, eg, his opposition to the temple.

If you do not believe that Jesus was created as a single effort (or as a conspiracy), why don't you believe that?

We have no evidence that Jesus was created as a single effort, but we have a lot of evidence that Jesus evolved. That's why I do not believe that Jesus was created as a single effort. This is true, regardless of whether or not an actual Jesus existed.

While Mark is much more interested in the earthly Jesus than Paul is in his letters, nonetheless, Paul does make some significant allusions to the earthly Jesus that should not be ignored, even despite Paul's own rhetorical protests to the contrary. Do you believe any of Paul's account of opposing Christians prior to his conversion/call? Did any of the pre-Pauline disciples of Jesus convince Saul of Tarsus that there had been an earthly Jesus? Or was Paul in on the conspiracy? Other questions can be asked, but why not take a stab at these, and those I've asked previously, first.

I am not sure what the specific beliefs of those prior believers, referred to by Paul, happened to be and I have never seen any good evidence to say otherwise. Paul says that he did not get his gospel from any man, I'll take him at his word.

Saul from Acts? I thought we were talking about Paul from the epistles. Anyway, regarding your question about what the pre-Pauline disciples told Paul, Paul says that whatever it was, it added nothing to his message. That's about all he has to say about that. If you have some information I may have missed, I'ld be happy to see it.

[guacamole]

My friend and I were talking today and he raised something during our discussions I found most interesting-

We figured that IF the Jews did in fact manage to get this jesus crucified for being an imposter, then why don't they have any records of it and why don't they celebrate every day their victory over this fraud?

Simple and only correct answer is, the story book jesus never existed!

There were other Jewish "Messiah's". None of them are widely celebrated or acknowledged. In addition, first century Jews were far less concerned about the Christians (or any other "looney" sect--i.e., the Essenes) than they were about the Romans, except that some looney sect might stir up trouble and get the Romans marching in. The Roman gladius did not, afterall, distinguish beteen the right and wrong kinds of Jews.

fwiw,
guaca.

[robrecht]

I didn't say you retracted it. I said that I was happy that you stopped asking me about it.

Actually, you were much more vague so I just wanted to clarify.

Secondly, I told you that I am AGNOSTIC regarding the historicity of Jesus, which means exactly what I said it means.

I'm not having any difficulty understanding your position. I even agreed with it with respect to historical certitude, even before you joined this discussion. But I do not confuse the role of the historian with one who only pronounces upon issues with some kind of metaphysical certitude.

I am not arguing for either the existence, or non-existence. I am arguing that the evidence is insufficient to decide either way without first making assumptions that, themselves, go beyond the available evidence. However, it would be great to be able to answer this question, so that's why I am interested in seeing what people have to bring to the table. Perhaps something I have overlooked.

You could start by trying to answer some of my questions I posed above ... Then we might also take a closer look at Paul's writings.

Ok, I'll keep this in mind when you use the word historian.

It is not as if I have proposed any unusual view of what makes for a good historian; after all, historians should indeed be intimately familiar with the texts of their era of specialty. The historical-critical study of texts, not apologetic, confessional, or theological use of texts.

We have no evidence that Jesus was created as a single effort, but we have a lot of evidence that Jesus evolved. That's why I do not believe that Jesus was created as a single effort. This is true, regardless of whether or not an actual Jesus existed.

Evolved from what? You may think you cannot answer this question, but I think you have in fact assumed an answer with respect to Paul that is rather superficial and not particularly plausible.

I am not sure what the specific beliefs of those prior believers, referred to by Paul, happened to be and I have never seen any good evidence to say otherwise. Paul says that he did not get his gospel from any man, I'll take him at his word.

Before you take Paul at his word, try to make sure you do, in fact, understand the meaning of his words. And, again, the primary question being addressed here is not necessarily what were the beliefs of the believers prior to Paul, but whether or not Jesus was an historical person or a fabrication.

Saul from Acts? I thought we were talking about Paul from the epistles.

We are. Do you have any reason to doubt that a single historical person is behind both the texts of Paul's authentic letters and Luke's portrait in Acts? To be sure, the portraits, either by Luke or a self-portrait by Paul himself, are not to be naively equated with that prior historical reality behind the texts.

Anyway, regarding your question about what the pre-Pauline disciples told Paul, Paul says that whatever it was, it added nothing to his message. That's about all he has to say about that. If you have some information I may have missed, I'ld be happy to see it.

I asked you if you believed Paul's account of opposing Christians prior to his own conversion/call, and you respond merely by saying that those who 'knew' Jesus before Paul added nothing to his message.

Earlier you said that Christ was revealed to Paul through the scriptures. But that is hardly a sufficient historical accounting of the facts or texts. Again, I would caution against naively accepting everything Paul says, especially without much attention to the most likely contextual meaning. Paul does not merely say that Jesus was revealed in him through the scriptures. He speaks of the tradition that was handed down to him, that Jesus was descended of Abraham, of David, alludes to some of Jesus' teachings, his betrayal, of some kind of (prophetic) words and gestures with bread and wine; he speaks of it being handed down to him that Jesus died for our sins according the the scriptures, was bured, and raised according to the scriptures. Part of the tradition that Paul received included resurrection appearances to Cephas, the Twelve, more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom he claims were still living, to James, then to all the apostles. It's beginning to look like a massive conspiracy, no?

You take Paul at his word when he says that Christ was revealed in him through the scriptures; do you also take him at his word about the tradition that he says was handed down to him? When Paul speaks of his previous opposition to Christians, do you believe him then too? Do you believe Paul when he speaks of his previous way of life in Judaism as a Pharisee, how intensely he persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it? After his call and return to Damascus, do you believe him when he says he went up to Jerusalem to consult with Cephas for 15 days? That after another 14 years, he again went up to Jerusalem, meeting James, the Lord's brother, Cephas, and John, to present his Gentile gospel to be sure that he had not been preaching in vain?

Historians of this era do indeed form judgements about the plausibility of what Paul has to say about himself and his contemporaries, and whether or not this Jesus of whom he and others preached was a pure fabrication or fantasy about a nonexistent person. Those who think they have proven that he did not exist with simplistic drivel do not convince many who are indeed well qualified to form historical judgements.

[robertb]

Evolved from what? You may think you cannot answer this question, but I think you have in fact assumed an answer with respect to Paul that is rather superficial and not particularly plausible.

Evolved over time from one theological view to the next, as evidenced by the surviving literature.

Before you take Paul at his word, try to make sure you do, in fact, understand the meaning of his words. And, again, the primary question being addressed here is not necessarily what were the beliefs of the believers prior to Paul, but whether or not Jesus was an historical person or a fabrication.

And the primary question is, based on the actual evidence, unanswerable.

We are. Do you have any reason to doubt that a single historical person is behind both the texts of Paul's authentic letters and Luke's portrait in Acts? To be sure, the portraits, either by Luke or a self-portrait by Paul himself, are not to be naively equated with that prior historical reality behind the texts.

Do I have any good evidence to confirm that either is, in fact, historically reliable? Any external controls for Paul or Saul? If so, please point them out.

I asked you if you believed Paul's account of opposing Christians prior to his own conversion/call, and you respond merely by saying that those who 'knew' Jesus before Paul added nothing to his message.

That is all Paul said about it. Paul does not discuss any details regarding his opposition to Christians, other than to say that he opposed them. Luke has a story, but, again, this story is unverifiable and, for various other reasons, suspect.

Earlier you said that Christ was revealed to Paul through the scriptures. But that is hardly a sufficient historical accounting of the facts or texts. Again, I would caution against naively accepting everything Paul says, especially without much attention to the most likely contextual meaning. Paul does not merely say that Jesus was revealed in him through the scriptures. He speaks of the tradition that was handed down to him, that Jesus was descended of Abraham, of David, alludes to some of Jesus' teachings, his betrayal, of some kind of (prophetic) words and gestures with bread and wine; he speaks of it being handed down to him that Jesus died for our sins according the the scriptures, was bured, and raised according to the scriptures. Part of the tradition that Paul received included resurrection appearances to Cephas, the Twelve, more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom he claims were still living, to James, then to all the apostles. It's beginning to look like a massive conspiracy, no?

You are reading the Gospels and Acts into Paul. Try reading Paul without that baggage.

You take Paul at his word when he says that Christ was revealed in him through the scriptures; do you also take him at his word about the tradition that he says was handed down to him? When Paul speaks of his previous opposition to Christians, do you believe him then too? Do you believe Paul when he speaks of his previous way of life in Judaism as a Pharisee, how intensely he persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it? After his call and return to Damascus, do you believe him when he says he went up to Jerusalem to consult with Cephas for 15 days? That after another 14 years, he again went up to Jerusalem, meeting James, the Lord's brother, Cephas, and John, to present his Gentile gospel to be sure that he had not been preaching in vain?

Again, I do not assume anything beyond what the text says. What did Paul talk to Cephas about, specifically? More over, what did Cephas specifically believe?

Historians of this era do indeed form judgements about the plausibility of what Paul has to say about himself and his contemporaries, and whether or not this Jesus of whom he and others preached was a pure fabrication or fantasy about a nonexistent person. Those who think they have proven that he did not exist with simplistic drivel do not convince many who are indeed well qualified to form historical judgements.

I have yet to read an argument for a historical Jesus that is not predicated on the assumption that Jesus existed in the first place. If you know of one, please point it out. However, 'drivel' seems an apt description of what I have, so far, encountered on that side of the divide, as well.

[robrecht]

... You are reading the Gospels and Acts into Paul. Try reading Paul without that baggage. ...

False. Every one of my statements came from one of the 7 Pauline letters generally regarded as authentic. It is you who seem to have adopted an an extremely uncritical view of Paul and his knowledge and use of traitional materials. A common view, popularized by Bultmann, but it is you who have not read Paul's letters very well.

... I have yet to read an argument for a historical Jesus that is not predicated on the assumption that Jesus existed in the first place. If you know of one, please point it out. However, 'drivel' seems an apt description of what I have, so far, encountered on that side of the divide, as well.

It is a common assumption because it is the most plausible explanation for what we know reliably about the early Christian movement. No one has put forward a more plausible argument for the nonexistence of Jesus.

[robertb]

False. Every one of my statements came from one of the 7 Pauline letters generally regarded as authentic. It is you who seem to have adopted an an extremely uncritical view of Paul and his knowledge and use of traitional materials. A common view, popularized by Bultmann, but it is you who have not read Paul's letters very well.
It is a common assumption because it is the most plausible explanation for what we know reliably about the early Christian movement. No one has put forward a more plausible argument for the nonexistence of Jesus.

I disagree. Every one of your statements, in effect, comes from Paul while carrying baggage from Acts and/or the Gospels. Your statement, "Paul and his knowledge and use of traitional materials", says as much.

This is the point you seem to miss.

I have read Paul's letters and when I discarded the baggage, I found that they did not, in fact, say what tradition had taught me that they said.

Regarding the "early Christian movement", it is my contention that you do not have the evidence necessary to "know reliably" pretty much anything at all. I understand where you are coming from because I was once there. The error became clear once I discarded the assumptions brought to the texts themselves. Once I did so, I realized that almost nothing I believed regarding the earliest days of the movement could be adequately supported by actual facts.

Finally, simply because we may find something plausible really says nothing about whether it is, in fact, accurate.

[robrecht]

I disagree. Every one of your statements, in effect, comes from Paul while carrying baggage from Acts and/or the Gospels. Your statement, "Paul and his knowledge and use of traitional materials", says as much.

This is the point you seem to miss.

I have read Paul's letters and when I discarded the baggage, I found that they did not, in fact, say what tradition had taught me that they said.

Regarding the "early Christian movement", it is my contention that you do not have the evidence necessary to "know reliably" pretty much anything at all. I understand where you are coming from because I was once there. The error became clear once I discarded the assumptions brought to the texts themselves. Once I did so, I realized that almost nothing I believed regarding the earliest days of the movement could be adequately supported by actual facts.

Finally, simply because we may find something plausible really says nothing about whether it is, in fact, accurate.

I am speaking only what Paul himself says he learned and passed on as tradition, no post-Pauline tradition.

Historians, especially with respect to ancient history, deal in plausibility. Do you really believe it is equally plausible that there was no Palestinian named Jesus that was somehow centrally involved in what became the Christian movement? If so, how else do you plausibly account for Paul's statement about the pre-Pauline tradition? If there is not another, (equally?) plausible explanation, there are not good historical grounds for doubting his existence.

[robertb]

I am speaking only what Paul himself says he learned and passed on as tradition, no post-Pauline tradition.

Historians, especially with respect to ancient history, deal in plausibility. Do you really believe it is equally plausible that there was no Palestinian named Jesus that was somehow centrally involved in what became the Christian movement? If so, how else do you plausibly account for Paul's statement about the pre-Pauline tradition? If there is not another, (equally?) plausible explanation, there are not good historical grounds for doubting his existence.

Paul is explicit with regards to his source.

I believe, based on the evidence, that it is equally plausible that there was no Palestinian named Jesus who is necessary to explain the formation of Christianity, as that there was.

Paul's statement does not relate the actual beliefs held by the "pre-Pauline" tradition. However, this is irrelevant, as I have never said that Paul invented Christianity.

I think some of the plausible grounds for doubt rests in the fact that almost the entire story seems to be plucked from the OT. Paul, himself, says as much when he tells us that God revealed Christ in him through the scriptures. It is plausible, even likely in my opinion, that the later evangelists did the same thing when writing the Gospels.

[robrecht]

Paul is explicit with regards to his source.

I believe, based on the evidence, that it is equally plausible that there was no Palestinian named Jesus who is necessary to explain the formation of Christianity, as that there was.

Paul's statement does not relate the actual beliefs held by the "pre-Pauline" tradition. However, this is irrelevant, as I have never said that Paul invented Christianity.

I think some of the plausible grounds for doubt rests in the fact that almost the entire story seems to be plucked from the OT. Paul, himself, says as much when he tells us that God revealed Christ in him through the scriptures. It is plausible, even likely in my opinion, that the later evangelists did the same thing when writing the Gospels.

Paul does indeed relate some details of the tradition he handed on (see above), and he is not always explicit as to his source(s). Do you also feel that it is equally likely that Paul was a victim of fraud as a co-conspirator of same?

No one doubts that Paul and others relied upon Jewish scripture in their interpretation of the significance of Jesus and of the Messiah. Likewise, critical scholars believe that these scriptures were instrumental in forming narratives about the life and death of Jesus. But that does not specifically argue against the historical existence of Jesus, 'though it does give us additional sources for much of the narrative and theological material. It does not specifically argue for the plausibility of Jesus being an imaginary figure. How many (other) imaginary figures can you point to that were the subject of such intense scripturalization?

[robertb]

Paul does indeed relate some details of the tradition he handed on (see above), and he is not always explicit as to his source(s). Do you also feel that it is equally likely that Paul was a victim of fraud as a co-conspirator of same?

You really like the words fraud and conspiracy...

You assume that 1 Cor 15 refers to information Paul got from, I suppose, the Jerusalem group. I do not make that assumption and Paul never says as much.

No one doubts that Paul and others relied upon Jewish scripture in their interpretation of the significance of Jesus and of the Messiah. Likewise, critical scholars believe that these scriptures were instrumental in forming narratives about the life and death of Jesus. But that does not specifically argue against the historical existence of Jesus, 'though it does give us additional sources for much of the narrative and theological material. It does not specifically argue for the plausibility of Jesus being an imaginary figure. How many (other) imaginary figures can you point to that were the subject of such intense scripturalization?

I would say that the fact that the major details of the gospels seem to be plucked from preexisting scripture make it unnecessary to posit an historical Jesus in the first place. As such, as has been shown by almost all work done in this area over the past century, the existence of Jesus as an historical person is presupposed in order to make the argument for an historical Jesus. The simple reason for this is that there are really no good facts with which to do otherwise.

So, if you feel like you have one rock solid fact that supports the historical existence of Jesus, please present it. On the other hand, if any mythicist feels that they have one rock solid fact that denies the historical existence of Jesus, I would love to see that as well.

Until then, agnosticism seems to be the only rational position with regards to this particular question.