Did Jesus Exist?

[doubtingmerle]

I have no reason to go against modern scholarship here. Do you?

OK, so I take it that you agree that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were not actually written by Peter as claimed.

My emphasis has always been on those who could have written about the historical Jesus, in particular, the apostle Paul. If the historical Jesus existed we would expect it to be mentioned there.

Emphasizing that someone who didn’t know him or his followers well should have recorded some unspecified historical details about Jesus needs justification IMO.

Paul didn't know Jesus's followers well?

Isn't it odd that Jesus is said to have come to show the way, and yet he shows the way to followers who cannot write and who do not even do a good job of communicating that knowledge to the most prolific early Christian writer, Paul?

If Paul didn't know Jesus or his followers well, then how do you know he was basing his Jesus story on a historical character?

You’re off track. A historical core to Jesus is what you are trying to argue against, not miracles.

Please go back and read what I have written. I have been saying that there could have been a historical Jesus at the core of the Q tradition.

If you don’t see any other possibilities then you have good justification with working off the only theory available. There is no certainty when dealing with the past because we weren’t there. He could have been an alien, but historical core with legend added to make him look more messiah-like is by far the most rational and supported explanation.

Yes, that is basically what I have said. There could have been a historical core to a man who was behind the Q gospel. Perhaps that man was even named Jesus.

But it is doubtful that Paul had the originator of the Q gospel in mind when he spoke of Jesus.

The closest example you could find to Jesus to compare to was a king of Israel and Paul from the Bible? Why do you think that is?

Because my hobby as a teenager was studying the Bible.

What evidence for Paul do you think is “good”?

Romans, 1 & 2 Cor, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thes., and Philemon, for instance.

I will gladly use whatever term you wish me to use if it describes what you are looking for. “Good” isn’t good enough. Until then I am going with “undeniable” evidence because it explains what you are actually looking for, while “good” doesn’t . And again I will gladly use your terminology if it is actually usable. I’m not going to use it if makes the conversation unable to be followed.

“Good” isn’t good enough? Why can you use the word "good" in your sentence--you said "good enough"--without having to define it? If I must define the word "good" when I use it, do you also need to define "good"?

Shall we start debating what the meaning of "is" is?

Please show me the evidence that Paul was referring to a historical Jesus that had recently walked on the earth with Paul's peers. If the preponderance of the evidence shows that Paul was referring to a historical Jesus then I will say that Paul was probably referring to a historical Jesus.

 

[ElijahW]

[FONT=&quot]Paul didn't know Jesus's followers well?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Isn't it odd that Jesus is said to have come to show the way, and yet he shows the way to followers who cannot write and who do not even do a good job of communicating that knowledge to the most prolific early Christian writer, Paul?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If Paul didn't know Jesus or his followers well, then how do you know he was basing his Jesus story on a historical character?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It’s a Way that was shown by faith in him as the messiah and then that he appeared to them after his death. They didn’t teach Paul anything, they convinced him that they had actual faith when Stephen imitated Jesus’ martyrdom. He takes this as a sign that they have seen actual proof of the dead living again, which is later reinforced for him by a vision of Jesus.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]All this hoopla is about if the dead actually live on and if that proves he was the messiah. If they aren’t talking about a historical person then they aren’t talking about proof of an afterlife or potential messiah. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Please go back and read what I have written. I have been saying that there could have been a historical Jesus at the core of the Q tradition.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, that is basically what I have said. There could have been a historical core to a man who was behind the Q gospel. Perhaps that man was even named Jesus.
But it is doubtful that Paul had the originator of the Q gospel in mind when he spoke of Jesus.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I guess I need to clarify some then. That the sayings go back to someone historical is given but the actual historical core (for me) is the self sacrifice of the Jewish messiah claimant that his followers would later imitate. Any problems with that?

Because my hobby as a teenager was studying the Bible.

So? Shouldn’t you still be able to find a Jewish messiah claimant or rebel rouser or something similar to Jesus to compare the evidence to?
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Romans, 1 & 2 Cor, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thes., and Philemon, for instance.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]All of those books have been tampered with by the Church. If you take the Jesus parts out what you have is a Jew trying to recruit gentiles into the movement by faith in God. If not that it could just be a made up figure to establish a line of apostleship for the Romans. What historical information do we have about Paul to compare to what we have about Jesus?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]What do you think about Acts and Luke being actually written by Paul’s physician? <end D-advocacy>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]What we are looking for is some unbiased sources that talk of Paul from the period. [/FONT]

“[FONT=&quot]Good” isn’t good enough? Why can you use the word "good" in your sentence--you said "good enough"--without having to define it? If I must define the word "good" when I use it, do you also need to define "good"?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Shall we start debating what the meaning of "is" is?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Because mine is word play and your use is causing you to not articulate your question clearly. The clearer you are with your questioning, the better the results will be. I admittedly have a terrible vocabulary and would prefer a more accurate word then “undeniable” but “good” is so vague it’s useless.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Please show me the evidence that Paul was referring to a historical Jesus that had recently walked on the earth with Paul's peers. If the preponderance of the evidence shows that Paul was referring to a historical Jesus then I will say that Paul was probably referring to a historical Jesus.

[/FONT]

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

They are talking about the resurrection of the dead being possible and how to get to that. In order to be resurrected from the dead you need to have lived and died.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It&#8217;s a Way that was shown by faith in him as the messiah and then that he appeared to them after his death. They didn&#8217;t teach Paul anything, they convinced him that they had actual faith when Stephen imitated Jesus&#8217; martyrdom. He takes this as a sign that they have seen actual proof of the dead living again, which is later reinforced for him by a vision of Jesus.

OK, you are assuming Acts to be historical. But Acts was not known until well into the second century. Many regard it as sheer fabrication. How do you know this book is reliable as history?

In Paul's own writings, he makes no mention of seeing Stephen imitating Jesus' martyrdom.

Shouldn&#8217;t you still be able to find a Jewish messiah claimant or rebel rouser or something similar to Jesus to compare the evidence to?

So I need to pick a rebel rouser? OK, how about Jesus ben Stada? (Josephus, Wars 6.3.) If I need to have my own personal rebel rouser, why not pick one named Jesus?

All of those books have been tampered with by the Church.

Yes, Paul's books have been tampered with. But they all claim to be authored by Paul, and the 7 books I mentioned show literary signs of being written by the same person. That's pretty strong proof that somebody who called himself Paul existed and wrote those books.

Now what books do you have that were written by Jesus?

What historical information do we have about Paul to compare to what we have about Jesus?

Words.

Words that claim to be written by Paul.

What do you think about Acts and Luke being actually written by Paul&#8217;s physician?

Luke and Acts never claim Luke as the author. Although this claim was made later, there is little evidence that this is so.

I admittedly have a terrible vocabulary and would prefer a more accurate word then &#8220;undeniable&#8221; but &#8220;good&#8221; is so vague it&#8217;s useless.

"Undeniable" is such a strong word when referring to evidence, nobody would demand it for anything.

Undeniable evidence is impossible. For this reason, courts do not demand undeniable evidence to condemn somebody. Instead they ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I certainly am not asking for undeniable evidence. I am not even going so far as asking for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I am looking for a simple preponderance of the evidence.

Can you show me that the preponderance of evidence points to the conclusion that Paul thought of Jesus as a historical person?

They are talking about the resurrection of the dead being possible and how to get to that. In order to be resurrected from the dead you need to have lived and died.

Yes, but it does not say Jesus lived and died on earth as a human. How do you know Paul did not think Jesus lived and died in the spirit world?

 

[doubtingmerle]

As we've already seen throughout this thread, this is not true.

You refer here to Doherty's claims that there were deep divisions within early Christianity. Yes, I know you have claimed otherwise, but what is your evidence? I have mentioned the divisions in Corinth as an example. Doherty mentions other examples of the deep divisions in the early church at Jesus Project Demise-Supplement 01 .

Nonetheless, if one wanted to talk about "early second century writings" one would surely mention Papius, Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Barnabas, Clement, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Oxyrhynchus Gospel, the references in Eusebius to Quadratus of Athens, and a number of others. It is most likely that these predate all of the sources that the article references. However, none of them fit well into the theory that you're trying to promote. Indeed many include references to or shared material with the gospels. So in the early second century it's flatly obvious that Christians did believe in the gospel narratives and the epistles.

Doherty discusses Barnabas, Clement and others in his article "Crossing the Threshold of History" "Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers" .

Yes, beginning about 90 AD we see a number of people who speak of an earthly Jesus, and this belief probably continues among some people in some places throughout the second century.

Doherty is not saying that belief in the eartly Jesus disappeared. He is saying that the second century apologists in general come from a different tradition. They spoke a different message from the message of an earthly Jesus. In fact, in some places, they seem to be strongly denying the earthly Jesus. During most of the second century, believers in this Logos Christianity appear to have been more predominate than believers in an earthly Jesus.

The theory that the article is advancing is, as best I can tell, that there was a very short time in the mid second century when the earlier belief in an earthly Jesus disappeared, after which it abruptly popped back into existence and took over after about 180 A.D. This, I think we can all agree, would be quite odd and would call out for explanation.

Having fun knocking down that straw man, eh?

Here is what Doherty actually says in that article:

In fact, one could say that [the second century apologists] pointedly ignore any historical figure at all.

This astonishing state of affairs, taken with the fact that the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles show no sign of surfacing in any other Christian writers until the middle of the second century, supports the conclusion that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth was a development in Christian thought which came to life only in the Gospels and gradually, throughout the course of the second century, imposed itself on the movement as a whole. [emphasis added]
​

There is nothing there about an early belief disappearing and abruplty popping up again.

But let's looks at the evidence anyway. As your article admits up front, to make the theory work you have to ignore the writings of Justin the Martyr. Since he's the most prominent apologist of the mid second century, that's a tough pill to swallow.

Please show me where it says one needs to ignore the writings of Justin.

The article mentions Justin 26 times! That doesn't sound to me like he is ignoring Justin.

Your article puts a lot of focus on the Epistle to Diognetus and Octavius of Minucius Felix. However, we're not sure when those were written. It may have been as late as the third century, which would make them irrelevant to this debate.

Even if they did write later, that only shows that the Logos faith without an earthly Jesus extended longer than Doherty claims.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Irenaeus, the most important apologist of the second century. It's true, as your article says, that his writings probably date from around 180 AD. However, he lived through the middle of the century and surely would have taken note if there was a period when Christians inexplicably stopped believing in an earthly Jesus and then went back to it.

Having fun knocking down the straw man that "Christians inexplicably stopped believing in an earthly Jesus and then went back to it." This has nothing to do with what Doherty is claiming.

 

[AlexBP]

You refer here to Doherty's claims that there were deep divisions within early Christianity. Yes, I know you have claimed otherwise, but what is your evidence? I have mentioned the divisions in Corinth as an example.

I have already responded to that quote from 1 Corinthians. If you snag that one sentence by itself, you can claim it's talking about multiple Christiani communities with different theologies. If you actually read 1 Corinthians and consider it along with the rest of the New Testament, you see that it's talking about no such thing. Paul specifically mentions personal rivalries and conflicts, but not major theological arguments. If major theological arguments about the nature of Jesus were erupting in Corinth, don't you think that Paul would have addressed that in his letter? Instead he focused on addressing personal conflicts. Hence Doherty's argument from 1 Corinthian fails to convince. Indeed, the fact that he'd pin so much of his argument on a desperate attempt to take this short passage out of context puts strong doubts on Doherty's honesty.

Now as for the fact that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus, repeating the evidence would simply involve repeating much of this thread. In his first sentence of Romans, Paul says that Jesus was "was born of the seed of David according to the flesh". You responded that this was metaphorical rather than literal. I asked why we should interpret this as metaphorical when, as far as I know, ever single use of that phrase in relevant ancient writing was literal. You didn't answer. Or again, Paul refers to James the Brother of Jesus. You say that he is referring not to a literal brother but rather a group of followers of Jesus. I asked for some evidence that any group of followers with that name existed and didn't get any. Or again the issue of the quote in 2 Thessalonians which you have to dismiss as inauthentic despite a total lack of manuscript evidence for that position. Or the many quotes, passages, metaphors, and other similarities shared by the gospels and the Pauline epistles. Or the additional evidence provided by the Epistle of James. And in addition to what's been mentioned in this thread, there are a great many other proofs of the point that could be mentioned. For example, in 1 Cor 2, Paul says that the crucifixion of Jesus occurred at the hands of present-day rulers of this world. And the list goes on, countless pieces of evidence showing that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus, any one of which would be sufficient.

Doherty mentions other examples of the deep divisions in the early church at Jesus Project Demise-Supplement 01

To start off with, much of what Doherty says is false. For instance: "Acts was written a number of decades into the second century", thus allowing him to dismiss what it says as non-historical. However, the arguments for both early dating and historicity of Acts are persuasive, which I won't go into here but you can find other threads about the topic. Doherty also talks about a late redaction of Luke, which has no factual support. You rely very heavily on Doherty and it seems that without him you won't have much, yet I find it very hard to trust a guy who fills his articles with whoppers like that.

Now the bulk of the article you linked to discusses Apollos of Alexandria, offering him up as the main piece of evidence that there were widely divergent theologies concerning Christ circulating in the early church. However, the evidence Doherty offers is rather lame. He argues that the five verses about Apollos in Acts must have been changed long after the fact. (That there's no manuscript evidence to support this claim goes without saying.) His claim is that it doesn't make sense for Apollos to be a preacher of Christ and at the same time not be familiar with baptism in Christ until being informed by Aquila and Priscilla. However, it's a big leap from there to being "confident that Acts has recast traditions". Next Doherty tells us what Apollos really believed.

The fact that he came from Alexandria in the middle of the first century makes it highly likely that he offered a type of wisdom theology which came out of the Hellenistic Judaism of his home city, that stream of philosophy expressed in the writings of the Jewish Platonist Philo and in the document known as the Wisdom of Solomon. Apollos was probably a teacher of revealed knowledge which in itself claimed to confer salvation (Koester calls it a "life-giving wisdom"). And it may be that his preaching represented an evolution beyond earlier ideas in seeing a spiritual Christ as a concrete divine figure who was responsible for this revelation, a Christ who had grown out of Alexandrian traditions of personified Wisdom (Sophia) wedded with the Greek Logos.

All this based only on the fact that Apollos came from Alexandria. I hope we can agree that deciding what a person probably believed based only on the city that person was born in (we don't even know whether Apollos lived there for any significant length of time) is not a sound method.

 

[ElijahW]

OK, you are assuming Acts to be historical. But Acts was not known until well into the second century. Many regard it as sheer fabrication. How do you know this book is reliable as history?

In Paul's own writings, he makes no mention of seeing Stephen imitating Jesus' martyrdom.

I don’t know about it being reliable but it provides useful information in building a model of early Christianity that explains why it has been the dominant religion in our culture for so long. I doubt it happened exactly as depicted but the imitation of a messiah claimant or teacher’s martyrdom by followers that helps convince people that he had actually rose from the dead explains why so many people today believe that.

Yep, Paul doesn’t mention Stephen and he doesn’t get a lot of mentions by the church fathers either (I think). I don’t know if Paul understood the impact of seeing Stephen’s sacrifice was what caused his faith or if he was really focused on the later vision. I don’t know if it registered as Stephen imitating Jesus but instead him being convinced that the dead could live again by seeing Jesus alive afterwards. The importance/impact of the martyrdom probably wasn’t initially seen but as Tertullian said “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”

So I need to pick a rebel rouser? OK, how about Jesus ben Stada? (Josephus, Wars 6.3.) If I need to have my own personal rebel rouser, why not pick one named Jesus?

I was actually going to recommend that. I think I’ve been told he mentions like twenty something different people named Jesus. So let’s look at the evidence to establish what it should look like for someone back then. I don’t know anything about him or the evidence so it’s on you to lay it out. Did he leave any writings for me to look at? Any of his followers?

Yes, Paul's books have been tampered with. But they all claim to be authored by Paul, and the 7 books I mentioned show literary signs of being written by the same person. That's pretty strong proof that somebody who called himself Paul existed and wrote those books.

Someone wrote them but what historians do we go to, in order to find out about this Paul that you believe is the writer? Are we supposed to work off what the Church tells us about Paul or what?

Now what books do you have that were written by Jesus?

Jesus didn’t write and died early in his preaching career.

Please tell me that you don’t think we need writings from someone to think they existed back then... especially in a time when so few could write proficiently?

Words.
Words that claim to be written by Paul.

And what is the evidence to verify that?

Luke and Acts never claim Luke as the author. Although this claim was made later, there is little evidence that this is so.

It was just part of my imitation of a myther.

"Undeniable" is such a strong word when referring to evidence, nobody would demand it for anything.
Undeniable evidence is impossible. For this reason, courts do not demand undeniable evidence to condemn somebody. Instead they ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
So I certainly am not asking for undeniable evidence. I am not even going so far as asking for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I am looking for a simple preponderance of the evidence.
Can you show me that the preponderance of evidence points to the conclusion that Paul thought of Jesus as a historical person?

I agree that “undeniable” is too strong… I’ll give “preponderance” a go.

I think we can only decide if we have preponderance for a historical figure after we look at the evidence and theory for an alternate theory. I think right now you are challenging the evidence of the opposing prosecution/defense but you haven’t laid out what you think really happened and the evidence you have to support that theory. I think it’s difficult to imagine a theory that can explain the rise and confusion necessary for a myth origin, much more so, support it with evidence.

We can only find out where the preponderance is after we see what evidence both sides has and which story seems more likely.

Yes, but it does not say Jesus lived and died on earth as a human. How do you know Paul did not think Jesus lived and died in the spirit world?

That’s the only way living and dying is possible. If it’s some figurative/symbolic living and death then it would have no relation to Paul living here since Jesus lived and died in the spirit world. Why would Paul care about something that was never alive like him, coming back from the dead but not actually from the dead? He only cares because he wants in on the deal. Like a lot of us.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have already responded to that quote from 1 Corinthians. If you snag that one sentence by itself, you can claim it's talking about multiple Christiani communities with different theologies. If you actually read 1 Corinthians and consider it along with the rest of the New Testament, you see that it's talking about no such thing. Paul specifically mentions personal rivalries and conflicts, but not major theological arguments. If major theological arguments about the nature of Jesus were erupting in Corinth, don't you think that Paul would have addressed that in his letter? Instead he focused on addressing personal conflicts.

Doherty doesn't just snag one sentence out of context. He spends a lot of time discussing the first 3 chapters of 1 Corinthians, as well as 2 Cor 10-12, and Gal 1. To say Doherty's case comes only from one sentence is completely misrepresenting what Doherty says here.

Yes, Paul is diplomatic in his argument against Apollos in I Cor., but later in 2 Cor. Paul takes off the gloves:

2 Cor. 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
​

2 Cor 11: 19-20 For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly.
For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face.

​

That sounds like a major theological argument to me.

Now as for the fact that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus, repeating the evidence would simply involve repeating much of this thread. In his first sentence of Romans, Paul says that Jesus was "was born of the seed of David according to the flesh". You responded that this was metaphorical rather than literal. I asked why we should interpret this as metaphorical when, as far as I know, ever single use of that phrase in relevant ancient writing was literal. You didn't answer.

Paul does not say that a recent Jeus on earth was the seed of David.

What he says is that he was called to the gospel of God which he got from the scriptures "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3) Paul says he gets this from the scriptures. He never says these scriptures were talking about a recent man on earth.

I have found that, often when Paul quotes the Old Testament he is taking the verse completely out of context, and is assigning it a figurative meaning that has nothing to do with what the verse literally meant in context. How do you know he is not simply taking "seed of David" figuratively?

Or again, Paul refers to James the Brother of Jesus. You say that he is referring not to a literal brother but rather a group of followers of Jesus. I asked for some evidence that any group of followers with that name existed and didn't get any.

The word "brother" in Acts and the epistles often refers to somebody other than a physical brother. (See BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: brother ). How do you know this use of the word brother has to mean a literal, physical brother?

As I asked before, if you only had the epistles to go by, would you be arguing that, since James was called the brother of the Lord, therefore God must have brothers, therefore God must have been incarnate, and so therefore a literal Jesus must have existed on earth? Can you see how this is taking far too much from one phrase?

Or again the issue of the quote in 2 Thessalonians which you have to dismiss as inauthentic despite a total lack of manuscript evidence for that position.

I explained this to you before. I Thess 2:15-16 appears to speak of the fall of Jerusalem of 70 AD in the past tense. Since this book was probably written around 50 AD, many scholars agree that those 2 verses were inserted later.

Or the many quotes, passages, metaphors, and other similarities shared by the gospels and the Pauline epistles.

What quotes? Please show me a clear quote of Jesus in the Pauline epistle.

Yes, there are some similarities in the teachings of Paul and the gospels, but this could be nothing more then the product of the same times, with similar traditions of sayings and teachings in common use.

Or the additional evidence provided by the Epistle of James.

What evidence from James?

And in addition to what's been mentioned in this thread, there are a great many other proofs of the point that could be mentioned. For example, in 1 Cor 2, Paul says that the crucifixion of Jesus occurred at the hands of present-day rulers of this world.

Paul actually says in I Cor 2: 8

Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

​

Now which princes of this world is he referring to?This verse is commonly thought to refer to demonic princes behind the crucifixion.

To start off with, much of what Doherty says is false. For instance: "Acts was written a number of decades into the second century", thus allowing him to dismiss what it says as non-historical. However, the arguments for both early dating and historicity of Acts are persuasive, which I won't go into here but you can find other threads about the topic.

I've heard the arguments for an early Acts. The later date makes more sense to me, and to many scholars. There is no clear reference to the book of Acts until 170 AD. Marcion, for instance, around 140 AD, accepted 10 Pauline epistles and a modified book of Luke, but doesn't mention Acts. Since it is very difficult to tie-in the story from the book of Luke to the Pauline epistles without Acts, and since Marcion was widely condemned as a hertetic, one would think he would have wanted to use Acts to verify his views.

Acts also shows signs of drawing from Josephus' work from 90 AD, indicating Acts was at least after 90 AD.

You rely very heavily on Doherty and it seems that without him you won't have much, yet I find it very hard to trust a guy who fills his articles with whoppers like that.

You seem to treat Doherty's writings as though they were Burger King: Every time you go there, you look for whoppers!

No, it is not a whopper to say Acts was written late. Many critical scholars have given a strong argument favoring this position.

Now the bulk of the article you linked to discusses Apollos of Alexandria, offering him up as the main piece of evidence that there were widely divergent theologies concerning Christ circulating in the early church. However, the evidence Doherty offers is rather lame. He argues that the five verses about Apollos in Acts must have been changed long after the fact. (That there's no manuscript evidence to support this claim goes without saying.)

No, Doherty does not argue that Acts was changed after the fact. He argues that the author of Acts wrote much later than Paul, and modifies the story of Apollos to make him look more like Paul then the original claims about Apollos.

His claim is that it doesn't make sense for Apollos to be a preacher of Christ and at the same time not be familiar with baptism in Christ until being informed by Aquila and Priscilla. However, it's a big leap from there to being "confident that Acts has recast traditions".

Doherty documents his reason for that leap, and it is not the reason you list. Would you care to share his actual reason?

Next Doherty tells us what Apollos really believed.
[...]
All this based only on the fact that Apollos came from Alexandria. I hope we can agree that deciding what a person probably believed based only on the city that person was born in (we don't even know whether Apollos lived there for any significant length of time) is not a sound method.

Are you reading what Doherty wrote? Doherty mentions the historical background of Alexandria, and then goes on to show from I Corinthians that Paul was condemning Apollos of Alexandria for teaching things that are close to what the people of Alexandria are known for. The historical context of Alexandria helps to understand what I Cor. is saying. Doherty is not deciding what Apollos taught based simply on where Apollos was from.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don&#8217;t know about it being reliable but it provides useful information in building a model of early Christianity that explains why it has been the dominant religion in our culture for so long. I doubt it happened exactly as depicted but the imitation of a messiah claimant or teacher&#8217;s martyrdom by followers that helps convince people that he had actually rose from the dead explains why so many people today believe that.

OK, Acts may not be reliable, but it provides useful information in building a model of early Christianity.

Many say that is the reason that Acts was written. The gospels and epistles do not fit together well. The Book of Acts ties it all together. Some think it was invented specifically for that purpose.

I think I&#8217;ve been told he mentions like twenty something different people named Jesus. So let&#8217;s look at the evidence to establish what it should look like for someone back then. I don&#8217;t know anything about him or the evidence so it&#8217;s on you to lay it out. Did he leave any writings for me to look at? Any of his followers?

Why should I do your homework for you? Remember this is your illustration not mine.

I don't even know for sure that Jesus ben Stada existed. You asked me to pick a rebel rouser. I picked you a rebel rouser. Now where exactly are you going with this?

Someone wrote them but what historians do we go to, in order to find out about this Paul that you believe is the writer? Are we supposed to work off what the Church tells us about Paul or what?

The only reliable information about Paul is what he says about himself in his books. Everything else comes too late to be reliable.

Please tell me that you don&#8217;t think we need writings from someone to think they existed back then... especially in a time when so few could write proficiently?

Correct, we don't need writings from someone to think they existed back then.

Why do you ask me to tell you that?

Words that claim to be written by Paul.

And what is the evidence to verify that?

Oh, please, read any book attributed to Paul. They all say they were written by Paul.

And as I said, since the seven considered genuine, all appear to be by the same person, then we can consider they were all written by the same person, and that his name likely was Paul.

I&#8217;ll give &#8220;preponderance&#8221; a go.

I think we can only decide if we have preponderance for a historical figure after we look at the evidence and theory for an alternate theory. I think right now you are challenging the evidence of the opposing prosecution/defense but you haven&#8217;t laid out what you think really happened and the evidence you have to support that theory. I think it&#8217;s difficult to imagine a theory that can explain the rise and confusion necessary for a myth origin, much more so, support it with evidence.

We can only find out where the preponderance is after we see what evidence both sides has and which story seems more likely.

Yes, the person that is interested in seeing if Paul was speaking of a historical Jesus or a mythical Jesus should look at the evidence for both sides, and go with the side with the best evidence.

The basic case for a mythical Jesus is found at Jesus Puzzle - Quick Assembly .

A more detailed case is found in the rest of that website.

An 800 page book is available if you want to go deeper.

Why would Paul care about something that was never alive like him, coming back from the dead but not actually from the dead? He only cares because he wants in on the deal. Like a lot of us.

A physical body raising from the dead with a physical body doesn't prove an eternal existence in an eternal world. After all, Elijah is said to have raised a girl from the dead, and nobody was proclaiming that this proves people will live forever.

Paul's claim is that those who were crucified with Christ will be resurrected in a spiritual body like Christ in the spirit world.

 

[AlexBP]

Please show me where it says one needs to ignore the writings of Justin.

Okay, here’s what Doherty says: “The amazing fact is, that of the five or six major apologists up to the year 180, none, with the exception of Justin, introduces an historical Jesus into their defences [sic] of Christianity to the pagans.”

So Doherty is saying that there is no mid-second century apologist who believed that Jesus was a historical figure with the exception of the central apologist of that time, Justin. Justin certainly believed that Jesus was a historical figure and his writings include numerous pieces of data about the life of Jesus in agreement with the Gospels. Doherty knows this and agrees with this. He gives no explanation for it that agrees with his theory. If the idea of a historical Jesus “gradually imposed itself on the movement throughout the course of the second century”, then Doherty is begging the question of why Justin firmly believed it and why he simply assumed that his readers accepted it without the need for argument.

One might also ask, if Theophilus and Athenagoras both believed that Jesus was not an earthly being, wouldn’t they at some point of said, “Oh some people believe that Jesus was an earthly being but that’s not correct”, or words to that effect? Indeed, don’t you think that if there were groups of Christians from this time period who believed that Jesus was not an earthly being, there would be at least one person who would have said so clearly?

 

[AlexBP]

Yes, beginning about 90 AD we see a number of people who speak of an earthly Jesus, and this belief probably continues among some people in some places throughout the second century.

Doherty is not saying that belief in the eartly Jesus disappeared. He is saying that the second century apologists in general come from a different tradition. They spoke a different message from the message of an earthly Jesus. In fact, in some places, they seem to be strongly denying the earthly Jesus. During most of the second century, believers in this Logos Christianity appear to have been more predominate than believers in an earthly Jesus.

Well, that's the rub. You and Doherty both believe that (a) there was any difference between "Logos Christianity" and a Christianity based on an earthly Jesus and (b) that the "Logos Christianity" were dominant for most of the second century. I disagree with both points.

First of all, to reiterate, Mark wrote about the life of Jesus earlier than 90 A.D. The date most commonly accepted by scholars is 70 A.D., though as I've said I would personally argue earlier. You said that you think Mark was writing about some founder of the "Q Community" but we still haven't seen any evidence that the Q Community is anything more than a product of an over-active imagination. More important for this discussion is John's Gospel, probably written in 90-100 A.D. Since it clearly identifies Jesus Christ as the Logos (meaning 'word' or 'message') and as a historical person, it shows that there's no reason for envisioning any split in Christianity as Doherty wants us to believe. Hence Doherty's entire argument based on how certain apologists focused on the Logos backfires.

Indeed, when we look at the most prominent Christian writers (such as Justin and Clement) what we instead find is strong evidence that the Logos and the historical Jesus were one and the same in the minds of all Christians at the time. There is no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

Now on to the second century. Doherty lists five apologists who supposedly were part of the group not believing in a historical Jesus. As we've already seen, for several we're not certain that they came from the second century at all. Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that all five actually came from the second century. Those five make up a very small part of the total amount of Christian writing that we have from the second century. Moreover, though admittedly our knowledge of the Christian community in the period is rather thin, none of the five appear to have been particularly major influences in that community, as opposed to Justin and Irenaeus, who were. How then can you say, based only on that very little evidence, and in the face of a much larger pile of contradictory evidence, that those not believing in a historical Jesus "appeared to predominate" during "most of the second century"?

Moreover, any attempt to claim that these five apologists indicate a community and a way of thinking about Christianity that's separate from the community that followed the Gospels and Paul is flat-out wrong. I'm not expert these particular apologists but merely by reading one I can pick apart the argument. Let's look at the Epistle to Diognetus. The entire text can be found at this site:

Early Christian Fathers | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Even a cursory reading shows us that whoever wrote this work obviously was familiar with both the Gosepls and the Epistles of Paul. The copy that I linked to lists just a few of the more obvious parallels. So far from providing evidence that the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul were marginal at whatever time (2nd or early 3rd century) that it was written, this letter instead points to the exact opposite.

Similarly for Athenagoras of Athens, he's obviously familiar with gospel material. He quotes it. So there's not much hope of saying that he was part of a community unfamiliar with that material.

It could be further pointed out that Doherty's entire argument is based on the assumption that if certain authors didn't specifically talk about the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth, then they didn't believe it occurred. However, this is a fallacy for an obvious reason. If every single person in ancient times believed that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, then there would be no need for an apologist to state it, because everybody already knew it. Likewise if I were to have a discussion about the meaning of a well-known thinker such as Machiavelli, Hume, and Freud, I could write quite a bit without ever mentioning biographical details because everybody already knows the biographical details. Hence Doherty's 'argument from absense' is a waste of time.

Your argument against the existence of Jesus is based almost entirely on citing Doherty ad nauseum. Since you also like to say that "scholars" believe this or that, it's worth noting that, as far as I can tell from his website, he doesn't seem to have a Ph.D., nor any other degree in Bible study or history, nor any peer-reviewed publications, nor does he put appropriate references in his works, as I've already pointed out. Now I'm not an academic snob. I'd be the first to agree that some Ph.D.'s are dumb as bricks and that amateurs often know a field better than the professionals. But really, what you've got here is one guy pouring out reams of stuff who is often and quite easily shown to be wrong. He doesn't really have any more credentials than you or I do.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If Jesus was recently seen on earth as a man, how can Hebrews stress the redemptive work in heaven, without ever mentioning that part of this happened nearby on earth in the presence of the author's peers?

I wanted to try and answer this since Gdon left but I didn’t know where to really start. Could you give a hypothetical example of what you wished the author said if there was a historical figure?

Examples with explanations of passages in Hebrews that one would surely expect to be different had the author been referring to a recent man on earth named Jesus can be found at this link: THE SOUND OF SILENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES: HEBREWS .

 

[Spirko]

Contemporary means "existing, occurring, or living at the same".

I see. So then, since very few historical events were actually recorded at the time, but written about later, you reject most secular historical events, as well?

Do you believe that Constantine was a real, historical figure?

And so you begin with attacks on the person? Do you think that is a good way to start a conversation?

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I never attacked you.

Why do you insult me? I do not insult you.

Again, I think you have me confused with someone else. I never insulted you.

What standard of evidence have I insisted on that is "ridiculously restraining"?

To insist we not cite first person narratives and stating that we must use only those sources that were written in "real time".

 

[doubtingmerle]

I see. So then, since very few historical events were actually recorded at the time, but written about later, you reject most secular historical events, as well?

No, of course not. What could possibly make you think that I reject historical events that were not recorded at the time?

Do you believe that Constantine was a real, historical figure?

Yes, of course I think Constantine was a historical figure. Why do you ask?

Again, I think you have me confused with someone else. I never insulted you.

Sir, please go back and read what you wrote. You said:

This is precisely why I find such conversations with people like you to be fruitless. You're not sincere because you insist on holding the evidence to a standard that any historian would find ridiculously constraining, so much so as to define your standards so narrowly that they are virtually impossible to be met.

It's all a game to you...

No sir, this is not a game to me. I am looking for serious discussion. If you too are interested in serious discussion, then welcome aboard. But please don't come here and attack the motives of other people.

I do no insist on holding evidence to a standard that any historian would find ridiculously constraining. If I have ever done that, please write back the words where I actually say what you claim.

What standard of evidence have I insisted on that is "ridiculously restraining"?

To insist we not cite first person narratives and stating that we must use only those sources that were written in "real time".

Excuse me, but I have never insisted that you could not cite first person narratives, and I never stated that we must use only those sources that were written in real time.

Now that you understand that I am not actually saying the things you claimed--perhaps you have me confused with somebody else--can we go back to the discussion of the issues, please? Thanks.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Justin certainly believed that Jesus was a historical figure and his writings include numerous pieces of data about the life of Jesus in agreement with the Gospels. Doherty knows this and agrees with this. He gives no explanation for it that agrees with his theory. If the idea of a historical Jesus "gradually imposed itself on the movement throughout the course of the second century", then Doherty is begging the question of why Justin firmly believed it and why he simply assumed that his readers accepted it without the need for argument.

The point is not that everybody believed a little at the start of the 2nd century, and ended up believing more and more as the second century went along.

The point is that few seem to have believed in an earthly Jesus during much of the second century, but more and more people believed it by 180 AD.

Did you read what the webpage says about Justin's conversion? The evidence indicates Justin begins with a faith in the wisdom of Christ, and only later comes to believe that wisdom was taught by a Christ on earth.

That is the interesting thing about Logos belief. One can begin by believing in wisdom from a Logos without considering the location of the Logos, and when one is later told that the Logos was on earth, it is a small change to add the earthly Jesus to the story.

One might also ask, if Theophilus and Athenagoras both believed that Jesus was not an earthly being, wouldn&#8217;t they at some point of said, "Oh some people believe that Jesus was an earthly being but that&#8217;s not correct", or words to that effect? Indeed, don&#8217;t you think that if there were groups of Christians from this time period who believed that Jesus was not an earthly being, there would be at least one person who would have said so clearly?

But we have such a quote. In the article we are discussing, Doherty quotes Minucius Felix:

"This abominable congregation should be rooted out . . . a religion of lust and fornication. They reverence the head of an ass . . . even the genitals of their priests . . . . And some say that the objects of their worship include a man who suffered death as a criminal, as well as the wretched wood of his cross; these are fitting altars for such depraved people, and they worship what they deserve . . . . Also, during initiations they slay and dismember an infant and drink its blood . . . at their ritual feasts they indulge in shameless copulation."
​

Thsi is a Christian apologist condemning those who worship a man who died on a physical cross.

We may not have many documents that actually condemn belief in an earthly Jesus, but remember, the documents that were passed down to us were the documents that the later church chose to copy. Documents that rejected the historicity of Jesus outright generally would not have been copied and saved for the future.
&#12288;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: I have corrected the last portion about Minucius Felix later in this thread. (doubtingmerle 3/26/2011)

 

[doubtingmerle]

You said that you think Mark was writing about some founder of the "Q Community" but we still haven't seen any evidence that the Q Community is anything more than a product of an over-active imagination.

Among critical scholars there is strong agreement for the two source hypothesis, that is, that Matthew and Luke both use Mark and Q as sources. Both Matthew and Luke appear to be unaware that the other was writing. Both rely heavily on Mark and Q. Mark and Q appear to be rare at the time that Matthew and Luke were writing. So why do Matthew and Luke both independently choose to put both books together to make a combined story of Jesus? The best answer to that seems to be that, in the "community" to which Matthew and Luke belonged, both books were known and respected, wheras they were not well know in areas where Paul taught.

More important for this discussion is John's Gospel, probably written in 90-100 A.D. Since it clearly identifies Jesus Christ as the Logos (meaning 'word' or 'message') and as a historical person, it shows that there's no reason for envisioning any split in Christianity as Doherty wants us to believe. Hence Doherty's entire argument based on how certain apologists focused on the Logos backfires.

Sure, one could believe that the Word became flesh. That does not mean that all who believed the Greek Logos believe that the Word became flesh.

Indeed, when we look at the most prominent Christian writers (such as Justin and Clement) what we instead find is strong evidence that the Logos and the historical Jesus were one and the same in the minds of all Christians at the time. There is no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

Where does Clement teach an earthly Christ? He uses some phrases close to the teaching of the gospels, but he is clearly not pointing to an earthly Jesus. See http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp12One.htm .
&#12288;

Moreover, though admittedly our knowledge of the Christian community in the period is rather thin, none of the five appear to have been particularly major influences in that community, as opposed to Justin and Irenaeus, who were. How then can you say, based only on that very little evidence, and in the face of a much larger pile of contradictory evidence, that those not believing in a historical Jesus "appeared to predominate" during "most of the second century"?

Much larger pile? Who exactly is on that larger pile of believers in an earthly Jesus?

Let's look at the Epistle to Diognetus. The entire text can be found at this site:
Early Christian Fathers | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Even a cursory reading shows us that whoever wrote this work obviously was familiar with both the Gosepls and the Epistles of Paul. The copy that I linked to lists just a few of the more obvious parallels.

That webpage compares Athenagoras' writing to the New Testament, but it shows no direct reference to anything about Jesus on earth. Nobody is saying that the New Testament didn't exist or that the second century apologists didn't use similar ideas. The point is that the earthly Jesus is missing.

Similarly for Athenagoras of Athens, he's obviously familiar with gospel material. He quotes it. So there's not much hope of saying that he was part of a community unfamiliar with that material.

Athenagoras says, for instance:

But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works."
​

(http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html )
&#12288;
&#12288;
This is a mythical reference to a mythical Son. Where is the earthly Jesus in Athenagoras?
&#12288;

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nonetheless, if one wanted to talk about "early second century writings" one would surely mention Papius, Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Barnabas, Clement, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Oxyrhynchus Gospel, the references in Eusebius to Quadratus of Athens, and a number of others.

OK, so you try to balance out all the gnostic writings and Logos teaching of the second century with references to these works. Let's take a quick look:

Papius: He refers to sayings of the Lord, but we don't know what sayings, or if they were claimed to be on earth. He refers to writings by Matthew and Mark which surely would not have been the books we know now by those names.

Ignatius of Antioch: Yes he was one that spoke of an earhly Jesus and he was early in the first century. See "Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers".

Epistle of Barnabas: Barely hints at the earthly Jesus. See "Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers".

Clement: He doesn't point to an earthly Jesus. See "Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers"

Gospel of the Ebionites: This is a version of Matthew. Yes, the four gospels existed (in several versions) and some believed them.

the Oxyrhynchus Gospel: OK, this is to an earthly Jesus.

Quadratus of Athens: Certainly not much to go on here.

So yes, there were some references to an earthly Jesus, but a good case can be made that the concept had to build up steam as it gained supporters throughput the second century.

 

[GakuseiDon]

OK, so you try to balance out all the gnostic writings and Logos teaching of the second century with references to these works. Let's take a quick look:

Papius: He refers to sayings of the Lord, but we don't know what sayings, or if they were claimed to be on earth. He refers to writings by Matthew and Mark which surely would not have been the books we know now by those names.

From here:
Fragments of Papias

"For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples"

Papias then gives a strange story about Judas:

"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."

Papias wrote a 5 volume work about sayings by Jesus, which appeared to be extant in Irenaeus' time, and Irenaeus did not view Papias as a non-believer in a HJ. AFAIK Doherty has no problem with Papias believing in a HJ.

Ignatius of Antioch: Yes he was one that spoke of an earhly Jesus and he was early in the first century. See "Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers".

Yes, there is no doubt that Ignatius knew of a HJ, though he didn't provide many details. In fact, in some letters he provides none. Ignatius is one of many such writers who appears to believe in a HJ but doesn't provide many details.

Epistle of Barnabas: Barely hints at the earthly Jesus. See "Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers".

Another writer who even Doherty sees believed in a HJ, but provides few details. As you say, he gives 'barely hints'. This is a common pattern with most early writers: they give an indication of believing in a HJ, but they provide few details.

Clement: He doesn't point to an earthly Jesus. See "Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers"

Clement writes:
First Clement: Clement of Rome

"Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him [Jacob]. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh."

That sounds like an earthly Jesus to me. Any indication in Clement that suggests that this was not an earthly Jesus?

Note that Clement also talks about Paul and Peter, and doesn't mention the cross or crucifixion at all.

Gospel of the Ebionites: This is a version of Matthew. Yes, the four gospels existed (in several versions) and some believed them.

Earthly Jesus. Some Ebionites thought that Jesus was just a man, and that Paul was an apostate.

the Oxyrhynchus Gospel: OK, this is to an earthly Jesus.

OK, another source referring to an earthly Jesus.

Quadratus of Athens: Certainly not much to go on here.

From here:
Quadratus of Athens (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

"Our Saviour's works, moreover, were always present: for they were real, consisting of those who had been healed of their diseases, those who had been raised from the dead; who were not only seen whilst they were being healed and raised up, but were afterwards constantly present. Nor did they remain only during the sojourn of the Saviour [on earth], but also a considerable time after His departure; and, indeed, some of them have survived even down to our own times.".

Again, this sounds like a belief in a HJ.

So yes, there were some references to an earthly Jesus, but a good case can be made that the concept had to build up steam as it gained supporters throughput the second century.

Actually, I think it goes the other way. We have lots of authors who, while appearing to believe in a HJ, nevertheless provide few details. Either they didn't know many details (yet nevertheless believed in a HJ), or they knew details but for some reason didn't give them.

My question to you is: Why can this not be true for Paul and the other epistle writers in the NT? How does one determine that Paul -- who provides few details -- did not believe in a HJ, when we can see examples of these other writers -- who also provide few details -- that did believe in a HJ?

Also, the NT canon was not settled until belief in a HJ was well established, according to Doherty's time-line. Why did the compilers go out of their way to select writers who included few details about a HJ?

 

[AlexBP]

Yes, Paul is diplomatic in his argument against Apollos in I Cor., but later in 2 Cor. Paul takes off the gloves:

2 Cor. 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
​

2 Cor 11: 19-20 For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly.
For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone e
exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face.

That sounds like a major theological argument to me.
​

...
No, Doherty does not argue that Acts was changed after the fact. He argues that the author of Acts wrote much later than Paul, and modifies the story of Apollos to make him look more like Paul then the original claims about Apollos.
...
Are you reading what Doherty wrote? Doherty mentions the historical background of Alexandria, and then goes on to show from I Corinthians that Paul was condemning Apollos of Alexandria for teaching things that are close to what the people of Alexandria are known for. The historical context of Alexandria helps to understand what I Cor. is saying. Doherty is not deciding what Apollos taught based simply on where Apollos was from.

Okay, let's look at what we know about Apollos of Alexandria in detail.

First of all, we can throw out those quotes you mentioned from 2nd Corinthians. Those are utterly irrelevant and have nothing to do with Apollos of Alexandria. He is never even mentioned in that letter.

Now let's look at First Corinthians. Doherty argues, as you say, that in 1st Corinthians Paul condemns Apollos of Alexandria for teaching things close to what the people of Alexandria were known for. However, unfortunately for Doherty and you, Paul doesn't actually condemn Apollos for teachings similar to those associated with Alexandria, nor does the condemn Apollos for anything. In fact, if you read 1st Corinthians straightforwardly and without a prior determination to find evidence of a conflict between Apollos and Paul, you would come away with the impression that Paul viewed Apollos in a positive light. There's simply nothing there to suggest the conflict that you and Doherty want. Here's a list of the verses that mention Apollos. 1:12, 3:5-6, 4:6, 16:12 Nothing in any of those passages would suggest that Paul and Apollos were on anything but the best of terms.

To support his theory, Doherty has to grab at other passages and say things like "[Paul] uses no names here, but Apollos is clearly implied" and "it is folly in itself not to regard this discussion as directly relating to the dispute with Apollos". But since Doherty hasn't yet given us any reason to believe that there is a dispute with Apollos, he's on rather shaky ground there.

If we read the letter in its entirety and interpret it in a straightforward way, what Paul is saying could be paraphrased thusly: "I and Apollos are both evangelists spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. But remember that you shouldn't create divisions among yourself based on which evangelist you heard from, but instead center your Christian identity only on the teachings of Jesus Christ." This also would explain why Paul mentions Apollos again in chapter 16, among a group of other individuals who he is commending or referring to.

On the passage in Acts 18, Doherty makes a big deal about the fact that verse 24 mentions Apollos teaching "correctly about Jesus", but apparently not being aware of the features that distinguished Christian baptism from John's baptism. From that alone he deduces that Acts presents a dishonest portrait of Apollos. However, it's entirely reasonable that before meeting Priscilla and Aquila, Apollos had simply received information about Jesus from some other source that did not know the details of Christian baptism. This would explain the passage quite well without the need for a conspiracy theory about a cover-up by the author of Acts.

 

[ElijahW]

OK, Acts may not be reliable, but it provides useful information in building a model of early Christianity.
Many say that is the reason that Acts was written. The gospels and epistles do not fit together well. The Book of Acts ties it all together. Some think it was invented specifically for that purpose.

I would agree that it was written to explain how the faith spread right after he died and why we are getting an interpretation of him coming from a Romanized Jew preaching a different Gospel to a different group of people than the guy in the Gospels was.

Why should I do your homework for you? Remember this is your illustration not mine.
I don't even know for sure that Jesus ben Stada existed. You asked me to pick a rebel rouser. I picked you a rebel rouser. Now where exactly are you going with this?

I think as I said before, you have the job of defending your position. You are trying to claim that the evidence for a historical Jesus isn’t “good” enough to establish preponderance and I’m claiming that a lack of historical evidence for comparable figures from that time shouldn’t be expected.

Have I misunderstood why you are asking for evidence of a historical Jesus?

The only reliable information about Paul is what he says about himself in his books. Everything else comes too late to be reliable.

It doesn’t matter if it comes too late to be reliable, we are trying to establish what kind of evidence we should expect for a historical figures in the time of Jesus.

What text would you say is the most reliable for the historical account of Paul’s life? Or anything that mentions his historical existence?

Correct, we don't need writings from someone to think they existed back then.
Why do you ask me to tell you that?

That seems to be the evidence you use to decide if someone existed or not back then and I don’t see you making the exceptions for people who didn’t write like Jesus or his followers.

Oh, please, read any book attributed to Paul. They all say they were written by Paul.
And as I said, since the seven considered genuine, all appear to be by the same person, then we can consider they were all written by the same person, and that his name likely was Paul.

That’s circular evidence. That would be like you asking for evidence of the gospels being historical and be responding with the gospels are the evidence. What other historical figures talk of Paul and him converting them to Christianity or his life? So we can see if what the (tampered with) epistles say, matches up with the rest of the evidence.

Yes, the person that is interested in seeing if Paul was speaking of a historical Jesus or a mythical Jesus should look at the evidence for both sides, and go with the side with the best evidence.

The basic case for a mythical Jesus is found at Jesus Puzzle - Quick Assembly .

A more detailed case is found in the rest of that website.

An 800 page book is available if you want to go deeper.

This isn’t a sales opportunity. This is an opportunity to present evidence for your position. So far you haven’t presented any evidence, nor have you even presented your position/alibi. All you have done is tried to argue that the evidence for the other side isn’t as good as it should be and that has been shown to be untrue based on comparable figures.

No unbiased juror is going to have a problem deciding who has the preponderance when one side can’t even layout what they think happened much less support it with evidence. Saying, let’s all read this 800 page book and I promise the evidence is in there, isn’t going to work for any jury or judge. You need to be able to clearly lay out what you think happened and then show the support or at least the reasoning behind thinking that.

Preponderance goes to historical core unless you think you can actually present and support an alternative?

A physical body raising from the dead with a physical body doesn't prove an eternal existence in an eternal world. After all, Elijah is said to have raised a girl from the dead, and nobody was proclaiming that this proves people will live forever.

The martyrdom is what convinced people, a person rose from the dead. The idea that you could be included in on the future resurrection, when he returns, comes from people trying to establish him as the messiah.

There is a little more going on then he rose from the dead and everyone is suddenly convinced they get to live forever. They are already believers in these concepts. The idea of the resurrection of the dead comes from the Persians and the Zoroastrians, not Jesus; he was just a believer in the prophecy. The eternal life comes from Genesis where retro prophets looked into the past and came to the conclusion we were originally intended to be eternal but we made a mistake in our history and are currently in a flawed state.

Paul's claim is that those who were crucified with Christ will be resurrected in a spiritual body like Christ in the spirit world.

I’d have to look at the specific passage. Paul seems to have the popular thinking of the time that the flesh was, at its base, flawed and if eternal life was going to be achieved then the body would need to be modified. Today we can imagine them figuring out a way to switch something in the DNA that stops aging but back then that thinking was beyond their knowledge base.

The other thing is understanding the spiritual elements that Jesus and everyone else back then is personifying or working with. This gets a little tricky and where you need to have some understanding of the philosophy of the time, which is more than I can go into at this moment for you.

Have you figured out if or how to tell if Paul was philosophically minded or someone who took Greek poems literally?

 

[ElijahW]

Examples with explanations of passages in Hebrews that one would surely expect to be different had the author been referring to a recent man on earth named Jesus can be found at this link: THE SOUND OF SILENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES: HEBREWS

During this response I’m going to have to assume that you understand correctly and think exactly like Doherty since you posted a link instead of speaking for yourself.

Chapters 8 and 9 are the theological heart of the Epistle to the Hebrews, for they describe the saving sacrifice of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

The epistle's fundamental point is the setting up of two counterpart sacrificial systems, the old and the new, the Sinai cult on earth and the heavenly sacrifice of Jesus which supplants it. The presence of Jesus on earth, crucified in the earthly sphere in the present or the past, would have foiled such a Platonic duality.

No it doesn’t. It’s distinguishing the difference between sacrifices that need to be done repeatedly and one that was better in that it only needed to be done once. And if you two were correct then we would expect to see an emphasis on a purely spiritual sacrifice instead of a onetime deal. There is a spiritual counterpart to the earthly during both sacrifices. It’s better promises that makes it a superior covenant. 8:6

[FONT=&quot]Let us, then, leave the initial teaching about Christ [NEB: let us stop discussing the rudiments of Christianity] and advance to maturity, not laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works, faith in God, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]instruction about baptisms, and laying-on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. [NAB][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here the writer is making a capsule summary of the basics of the community's belief and practice. They include teaching about Christ, repentance, baptism, the promise of eternal life. Anything proceeding from Jesus himself is notably missing.[/FONT] Even faith itself is centered on God, not on Jesus or anything he did. One might think that one of the rudiments of the new religion would be the faith that its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, was the Son of God and Messiah. Jesus' own teachings should also have formed one of the foundations of the faith.

[FONT=&quot]It’s not notably missing, it’s not relative to the point he is trying to make in the letter about Jesus’ sacrifice establishing a new covenant. I think this error in thinking is the basis for most of these expectations you and Doherty are making in the link. You don’t seem to understand the audience he is writing to or the subject matter.[/FONT]

If the writer and his community are advocating a christology which goes against the grain of the wider Christian movement (and every commentator would agree that Hebrews does so), we would expect to find an attempt, no matter how artificial or unfounded, to ground that christology in the teachings of Jesus himself.

The point is the sacrifice of the messiah and not anything Jesus taught is another problem with the interpretation of Christianity going on with you two. If Jesus was a Gnostic teacher and something he taught was central to salvation then this would be a valid point. But the central point to salvation in Christianity is faith in him as the messiah or whatever authority figure the community recognized, be it priest or king.

The author quotes Psalm 118, but what of Jesus' moving and poetic equivalent in the Sermon on the Mount about putting away anxious thoughts and worries about the necessities of life?

There is no reason to assume that the writer would have the ability to quote it by having the texts or hearing it as part of the oral tradition. There is even less reason to think the audience would be familiar with it and if they were, would be persuaded by it. The writer of Hebrews is going to quote what has credibility to the audience he is speaking to.

The two actual historical mentions he expects that I can recall are the betray of Judas and the Eucharist. Since he is writing a paper about him sacrificing himself then the Judas story is going to be a plot difficulty that is counter to his point of him sacrificing his own life.

The Eucharist, if he was from a community who practiced it, would also be counter to his point that Jesus’ sacrifice gets rid of the need of other sacrifice and ritual.

If there is a specific silence you want me to respond to on the list that you think are valid then let me know. Some stuff he said just didn’t make sense to me. But please make sure you look at it and think through if that’s a valid expectation first. This looks very similar to Remsberg’s list. Compile a bunch of unrealistic expectations together and say that together it shows a silence.