Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Bernard Muller »

That Paul thought Jesus had been "here" on Earth could be pretty clear
Yes it is pretty clear:
1) He was a man (Ro 5:15 "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15).
2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3)).
3) He came from a woman (Gal 4:4).
4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8)
6) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
7) The crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm
8) He had brothers (contemporaries of Paul) (1 Cor 9:5).
9) These brothers were travelling with "a "sister", a wife" (1 Cor 9:5).
10) One of Jesus' brothers was named "James" (Gal 1:19), whom Paul met several times (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
11) James lived for a long time in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
12) James was also an important member of some Jewish sect (Gal 2:2, 9, 12).
If you don't buy the crucified-heavenly-being hypothesis, how do you explain Paul's explicit description of exactly that in 1 Cor 2:8?
The Greek word for "ruler" in 1 Cor 2:8 is used by Paul 3 times in his 7 deemed authentic epistles. In Romans 13:3-6 the "rulers" ('archon') are human authorities (& also Roman officials, as Pilate!):
"For rulers ['archon'] are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing."
Nowhere else, in the aforementioned epistles, these "archons" are specified to be heavenly.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2891
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by maryhelena »

outhouse wrote:
maryhelena wrote: Any debate over the historicity or ahistoricity of the gospel Jesus figure that holds that "as evidence, the gospels simply make no difference to the equation" is shooting itself in the foot.

Agreed.

It is evidence. Only the quality of said evidence can be debated.

The failure to provide a hypothesis that explains this evidence, is where all mythicist have severely failed.


To date, nothing explains it as well as a martyred man at Passover that generated mythology in the Diaspora.
Or a crucified, hung on a cross and scourged and later beheaded flesh and blood King and High Priest of the Jews..... ;)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Stephan Huller »

Ugh I hear the steady drum beat is continuing ...
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Stephan Huller »

Those of us who are tired of those who relentlessly promote a ludicrous interpretation of the gospels say "Ay!"
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by MrMacSon »

ghost wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:We don't know who 'Paul' was, or who wrote the Pauline texts.
It was Flavius Josephus. The gospels are dated to 70 AD to 100 AD
it is a common assertion that the gospels are dated then, especially by Christian-apologists, but it is a spurious assertion.

Even if some of their content started then, it is highly likely they were embellished over the following centuries. We know there was a short version of Mark in 4th C bibles. We know those 4th C bibles included texts not included in other bibles. We know Eastern bibles differ from Western bibles.
that's when Flavius Josephus was in Rome. Acts 9-28 is based on the Flavius Josephus autobiography.
Acts was written after Josephus.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by MrMacSon »

“[Jesus] originated as a mythical character in tales symbolically narrating the "salvific acts" of a 'divine being' who never walked the earth. Later this myth was mistaken for history, or deliberately repackaged that way, and then embellished over time … The odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000 [.008%]. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero. Even when I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3 [32%].”

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt, pp xi, 600

as cited by Loren Rosson
ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by ghost »

MrMacSon wrote:Acts was written after Josephus.
Correct. :thumbup: I didn't imply otherwise.
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Hawthorne »

Bernard Muller wrote:
That Paul thought Jesus had been "here" on Earth could be pretty clear
Yes it is pretty clear:
1) He was a man (Ro 5:15 "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15).
2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3)).
3) He came from a woman (Gal 4:4).
4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8)
6) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
7) The crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm
8) He had brothers (contemporaries of Paul) (1 Cor 9:5).
9) These brothers were travelling with "a "sister", a wife" (1 Cor 9:5).
10) One of Jesus' brothers was named "James" (Gal 1:19), whom Paul met several times (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
11) James lived for a long time in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
12) James was also an important member of some Jewish sect (Gal 2:2, 9, 12).
If you don't buy the crucified-heavenly-being hypothesis, how do you explain Paul's explicit description of exactly that in 1 Cor 2:8?
The Greek word for "ruler" in 1 Cor 2:8 is used by Paul 3 times in his 7 deemed authentic epistles. In Romans 13:3-6 the "rulers" ('archon') are human authorities (& also Roman officials, as Pilate!):
"For rulers ['archon'] are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing."
Nowhere else, in the aforementioned epistles, these "archons" are specified to be heavenly.

Cordially, Bernard
I know that you are aware of the arguments against these being references to Jesus of Nazareth, crucified under Pilate.

I will address the last point though. Do you think archons in Romans 13 has the same connotations as archons in 1 Cor 2:8? That the same archons that crucified Jesus of Nazareth can be held in such high esteem by Paul?

To me, these passages make sense only if the archons in 1 Cor 2:8 are not considered by Paul to be the archons in Romans 13. And, in fact, I think the Paul uses the terms "rulers of this age" 1 Cor 2:8 to mean something different than Romans or Sanhedrin, such as his use in Romans 13. We agree on what he means in Romans 13. Are these the same archons in 1 Cor 2:8? Doesn't seem likely to me.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Bernard Muller »

The odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000 [.008%]. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero.
Compare that with Carrier's book subtitle:
Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt
The possibility of having reason to doubt becomes 99.992 % for non-historicity :banghead: :consternation:
Even when I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3 [32%].
And that .008% can go up to 33 % :banghead: :consternation:

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by ghost »

MrMacSon wrote:
“[Jesus] originated as a mythical character in tales symbolically narrating the "salvific acts" of a 'divine being' who never walked the earth. Later this myth was mistaken for history, or deliberately repackaged that way, and then embellished over time … The odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000 [.008%]. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero. Even when I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3 [32%].”

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt, pp xi, 600

as cited by Loren Rosson
That's Divus Iulius. Caesar was soter (savior); that's why he had the crown. He was deified with statues in Divus Iulius temples after his civil war when still alive.
Post Reply