Did Jesus Exist?

[Stephen Kendall]

Around 70 AD the book of Mark was written, with an astounding claim: The Son of God had lived in recent history and walked among us! We have no record of anybody clearly claiming this before the book of Mark. Paul seems to be writing of a heavenly Jesus dying in a heavenly realm. He expresses no interest in the miracles or earthly teachings of Jesus, or in any of the earthly events. Similarly, other early Christian writings are eerilly silent about the earthly life and teaching of Jesus. And contemporary secular historians wrote nothing about Jesus.

After Mark, the concept of an earthly Jesus was echoed by many including Matthew, Luke, and John. The story of an earthly Jesus would later come to dominate all Christian writings.

But was Mark writing fact of fiction? Did the story really happen as recorded? Was he exagerating the story? Or was he simply writing a novel to bring hope to a troubled people?

If you elaborated on an event or story and then one day someone offered you death for your fabrication, would you die for your fantasy. How many would have also fantasied and died through the centuries for this same made up story? To die for something that you believe in which had converted you from lying and being evil towards righteousness and being holy, sounds like it is directed from a non-worldly nature. Believing in good till you die isn’t anything other than believing in the truth. It convicts itself of honesty and sincerity towards truth itself. Those of innocence can see, but those of evil can not. The lost can be found, but the evil shun the light of any truth.

 

[justaguy78]

I'd say it is more likely than not that Jesus existed and I think most would agree in the historical Jesus. Whether the "son of God" aspect is true is of course a totally different topic.

One thing I see a lot of people say as proof of Jesus' divinity is talking about the followers dying in their belief and asking if people would die in something that wasn't true. Umm, a lot of people throughout history have believed in something that wasn't true and died for it (hello cults) so it is somewhat silly to use that as evidence.

The reality is that nobody can say for sure whether what we have been told about Jesus is true or not...you simply can't. Using the bible as evidence really isn't useful because the bible was written by man and there is NOTHING that says men couldn't have wrote what they wanted to and said God told them to. If someone today did that would everyone believe the person? Probably not yet because the bible is old everyone assumes people back then couldn't have been making things up. Furthermore, we all know the bible has been translated 45 gazillion times and things are usually lost in translation.

All I can say is that I'd like to hope everything written about Jesus is indeed true based on all the death that has been caused because of that belief and because of the billions of people who have believed it. If it is all a hoax then wow, that has been one amazing cult.

 

[AlexBP]

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.

I'm afraid that I'm having a bit of trouble following your logic here. If we follow the mainstream dating among American, secular scholars, we'd date Matthew and Luke to about 80 A.D. (As always I would personally argue for an earlier date, but I won't go into that here.) You say that "Mark and Q appear to be rare at the time that Matthew and Luke were writing." how do you know that? We don't have too many other Christian sources dating from around the year 80 A.D. However, we can look at the Epistles and see a lot of overlap between the material they have and the material from both Mark and Q. The Epistle of James has a particularly large amount of overlap in this regards. Multiple quotes from James are shared by Mark, multiple quotes from James are shared by Q, and multiple quotes from James are shared by the material in Matthew that isn't in either Mark or Q. With James probably dating to around 50-60 A.D., this means that the Greek-speaking Christian community at that time must have had the same knowledge as the community that produced Mark, the community that produced Q, and the community that produced Matthew. Likewise, Paul's letters include quotes and other shared material with both Mark and Q and the additional material in Matthew, so the same deal there. So as I see it, the situation is best explained by the theory that there was only one Christian community at the time and there was only one Christian community until heretical branches started appearing mid-to-late second century.

 

[Johnnz]

1 Thessalonians is considered thee earliest of Paul's letters, preceding the copies of gospels we have today. Paul wrote:
1 Thess 3:11-12 11 Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you. NIV

There is a clear theology (God), soteriology (Father we are members of His family) and Christology - Lord (a title used of God) and Christ ( a common Messianic title involving redemption and recreation of the cosmos.

Obviously the initial recipients of the letter understood what Paul meant.

John
NZ

 

[Anchorofmysoul]

I'm just reading this thread for the first time and I'm only up to page 5, so if some of what I respond to as I go along has already been addressed, then please forgive me.

Well yes, I mentioned in the OP that Paul mentions the death of Christ, so this does not come as news to me. Does Paul give any indication that this death was a recent death of a real man? He never mentions Pilate or Judas or Calvary or any of the earthly details of the crucifixion.

Calvary is only mentioned by name one time in the entire Bible, so why would you find it odd that Paul didn't mention it by name?

Also, Paul mentioned Pilate twice.

Luke recorded one of Paul's sermons in Acts chapter 13, where we read:

Acts 13:28 "And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain."

Also, Paul mentioned Pilate in his first epistle to Timothy, where we read:

I Timothy 6:13 "I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession..."

You're clearly in error.

 

[Anchorofmysoul]

Once again, I'm reading this thread for the first time and I'm now up to page 9, so if someone already addressed what I'm about to say, then I apologize.

Really? Where does Paul ever clearly state anything that His Messiah said on earth? If Paul was simply taking Jesus's words, and interpreting them for a different audience, there would be no issue. The problem is that he ignores the story of the earthly Jesus, his miracles, and his sayings.

Again, you are clearly in error.

Just off the top of my head, I recall where Paul clearly stated what the Lord said while on earth, when he said:

I Corinthians 11:23 "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

You should also note how Paul mentioned "the same night in which he was betrayed."

I say this because you previously stated that Paul never mentioned Judas.

Who do you suppose Paul had betraying Jesus?

Once again, you're clearly in error.

 

[Anchorofmysoul]

I'm up to page 11 and things still aren't looking too good for you.

You're full of error and I've avoided addressing several of them already.

Well, I'll take a poke at this one, since it seems to be a persistent mistake on your part.

But for some reason, Paul saw no need to talk about the incarnation in his letters.

In post #29 you stress the Incarnation, and say it is the basis of faith. If it is that important, how can Paul stress faith, and yet bypass the incarnation?

Who said that Paul never addressed the incarnation?

You?

From what I've read thus far, you're far from a reliable witness.

I Timothy 1:15 "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

What do you suppose "came into the world" means?

It means that Christ was incarnate.

I Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

God was manifest in the flesh.

Pssst...that's the incarnation.

He was also "received UP into glory".

Pssst...He was received up from the earth.

Continuing on in Paul's same first epistle to Timothy, we read:

I Timothy 6:13 "I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession..."

Came into the world.

Manifest in the flesh.

Witnessed a good confession before Pontius Pilate.

Received up into glory.

Those are just a few of many examples where Paul speaks of Christ's incarnation and consequential exhaltation.

As usual, you're in great error.

This should concern you.

Does it?

 

[Anchorofmysoul]

Man, you've really got a lot to learn and the wrong attitude to do so.

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?

What in the world are you talking about?

Can you read or are you so used to cherry-picking scriptures that you've become unable to think under the guise of being a thinker?

Back up a little bit and see what you read, okay?

Here, I'll help you:

Hebrews 5:5-7 "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared..."

Who IN THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH.

What do you suppose that means?

Jesus was incarnate.

While incarnate, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able TO SAVE HIM FROM DEATH.

You know, like when He cried out to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane.

IOW, don't bother misquoting from chapter 9.

Some of us have read the entire epistle.

I could also point out the grievous extent of your error by actually commenting on the verses from the Old Testament that the writer of the epistle of the Hebrews just cited, but I won't bother to do so for now.

I don't see how anybody could say that the face reading of Hebrews 9 is that Jesus walked on earth and was crucified on earth in front of living witnesses.

Try taking off the blinders and you'll see just fine.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wow, we seem to have stirred up some interest here!

I'll try to address some of the important points as I have time, but obviously I don't have time to respond to everything here.

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.

Correct. That is why I took care not to mention the name of the book, or to do anything that could be interpreted as selling a book.

There is no charge to click the link and read the evidence that is there.

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.

Sigh.

In case you missed it, here again is where you can find the case for a mythical Jesus. I said:

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.
​

Also, my viewpoint was summarized in the opening post.

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.

Please read the link I mentioned. The case has nothing to do with "the evidence for the other side isn’t as good as it should be." The case for the mythical Jesus is that analysis of the available early writings of Christianity indicates it is more consistant with a mythical Jesus than a historical Jesus. Later Christian writings--after 70 AD--do stress an earthly Jesus, but those accounts have been criticised as heavily biased, and they don't tie in well with the exalted view of Christ that Paul shows for his Jesus. Could it be that both the traditions of Paul and Mark come from a savior/messiah mentality of the time, with no link between the heavenly savior of Paul and the earthly messiah of Mark until later writers created the link?

Note that we are not complaining about the lack of evidence (although we all wish there was more). The issue is that the available evidence seems to point to a mythical Jesus.

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.

No unbiased jury is going to have a problem deciding the case because an examining attorney on the case is not also a witness. I am here as an examining attorney--to stick with your courtroom metaphor--not a witness.

Please look up at the top of the screen where it says "Exploring Christianity". We are here to explore Christianity, not to argue for alternatives. I have presented enough of the alternative to ask you how you respond to those views, but I am not here to argue those views. (OK, sometimes I need to hold myself back, but that is really not the purpose of being here.) I am here to see if you can provide adequate answers to the challenges that people make concerning your faith.

And yes, to go back to your courtroom metaphor, I have called a witness, Earl Doherty. And I have even pointed out where he is available for cross examination if you desire.

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.

That's why I didn't say that. Please look at what I said.

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.

I have summarized the case, but I don't have time to write the many pages needed to lay out all of the case.

Why exactly do I need to lay out the case, if it has already been layed out elsewhere? Wouldn't that be a wasted duplication of effort?

Sure, I could take the time to study what Doherty wrote, and make a website as valuable as Doherty's, but who would that benefit? All that would do is make two websites with the same content.

The interested reader who is interested in learning about the case for the mythical Jesus, rather than playing games demanding multiple duplications of the same work, can go to that link and read it for themselves. Then they can come back here and give their response to that evidence.

 

[AlexBP]

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.

Consider a brief analogy. Suppose I have scores of sources referring to a boxer named Muhammed Ali, who was also the same person known as Cassius Clay. In addition to this, I find two or three references to Muhammed Ali which do not explicitly say that this is the same person as Cassius Clay. Which would be more likely, that this later group of sources refers to the same person and doesn't bother mentioning the name Cassius Clay because everyone knows that's the same person as Muhammed Ali, or that this later group is a splinter group which has an entirely different picture of the nature of Muhammed Ali bearing no relationship to Cassius Clay?

 

[Anchorofmysoul]

Wow, we seem to have stirred up some interest here!

I'm interested in whether or not you'll admit your error.

I'll try to address some of the important points as I have time, but obviously I don't have time to respond to everything here.

How convenient.

You've had plenty of time to spout your error, but are you now too busy to admit it?

 

[AlexBP]

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.

First of all, as already mentioned, the dating of this work is highly questionable. It shares much with the works of Tertullian so one must have copied the other. Scholarly opinion leans towards Felix copying Tertullian, and St. Jerome affirms this, which would put it in the third century. However, even if Tertullian was the copyist, that gives no evidence that Felix wrote before about 190 A.D. Felix wrote in Latin and no Christian writer from the mid-2nd century wrote in Latin; they wrote in Coptic and Greek. Hence this work really can't be trusted to tell us anything about the views of Jesus in Christianity in the time period were concerned with.

Second, almost everyone agrees that there were heretical gnostic Christianity movements spring up by around 200 A.D. Many scholars believe that Felix belonged to one of these movements, and substantial evidence in the text supports it. "Gnostic" covers a wide range of beliefs, but many believed that Jesus was not a man, but rather a spiritual being who took on the form of a man and did everything the gospels said, but never actually was human or had a body. This would explain why Felix denies the possibility that a man who was crucified could be proven a God.

However, the main point is simply that Octavius is a record of a debate in which the title character takes on a Pagan critic who is making savage attacks against Christians. The passage that you've quoted comes from the Pagan critic, and Octavius subsequently rebuts it. As this article explains, Doherty's explanation of what Felix is actually presenting in Octavius is dishonest. Indeed mentioning this work can be seen as working against your argument because it proves that even Pagan critics at whatever time it was written knew about Jesus as a person who was crucified. The only dispute was about whether he was truly a man in the flesh or a God taking on the exact appearance of a man in the flesh.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Consider a brief analogy. Suppose I have scores of sources referring to a boxer named Muhammed Ali, who was also the same person known as Cassius Clay. In addition to this, I find two or three references to Muhammed Ali which do not explicitly say that this is the same person as Cassius Clay. Which would be more likely, that this later group of sources refers to the same person and doesn't bother mentioning the name Cassius Clay because everyone knows that's the same person as Muhammed Ali, or that this later group is a splinter group which has an entirely different picture of the nature of Muhammed Ali bearing no relationship to Cassius Clay?

Consider also this brief analogy: Some people believe that Toyota electronics frequently cause the cars to go out of control. That does not mean that all who believe that Toyotas exist believe that Toyota electronics frequently cause the cars to go out of control.

That was easy.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Ok, Acts was written to explan how a gospel taught to a group of locals in Galilee became widespread in the empire with the leadership of Paul.

But is it historical? Many argue that it was sheer fabrication.

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.

Really? I thought we were trying to establish if Paul thought Jesus was a man who recently walked on earth with his peers, or was a heavenly savior who did his salvation work in a mythical sphere.

Are you sure you hopped on the right thread?

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

Galations 1 & 2 Cor. 11.

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.

The fact that we have seven books authored by Paul is good evidence that Paul existed. Yes, Paul might have been using a penname, but still we know that the man who called himself Paul and wrote these books must have existed.

The only alternative is that the books were written by committee or evolved over a long period of time with no distinct author. I'm no expert on such things, but since the consensus seems to be that these books were written by a single man, not be a committee, we therefore can deduce that the writer of Romans and the other 6 books must have existed.

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.

I cor 15:39-44

39All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
40There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42)So also is the resurrection of the dead It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
​

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Epistle of James has a particularly large amount of overlap in this regards. Multiple quotes from James are shared by Mark, multiple quotes from James are shared by Q, and multiple quotes from James are shared by the material in Matthew that isn't in either Mark or Q.

There is a lot of overlap in thought, but could it just be common tradition, or common sayings of the time? Both may say let your yes be yes, but could that not simply have been a common expression among the Christians of the time?

Does James ever specifically say, "Jesus said....", or "As our Savior taught..." or some such thing? Does he ever give Jesus credit for a single thing in his book? If Jesus was his source, why wouldn't he give him credit?

Can you give me an example of a place where James is clearly quoting Jesus?

 

[doubtingmerle]

1 Thessalonians is considered thee earliest of Paul's letters, preceding the copies of gospels we have today. Paul wrote:
1 Thess 3:11-12 11 Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you. NIV

There is a clear theology (God), soteriology (Father we are members of His family) and Christology - Lord (a title used of God) and Christ ( a common Messianic title involving redemption and recreation of the cosmos.

Obviously the initial recipients of the letter understood what Paul meant.

John
NZ

OK.

And what about the issue of this thread? Does this verse in any way suggest that the Father was in heaven while Jesus had been on earth for a while?

 

[Johnnz]

Ok, Acts was written to explan how a gospel taught to a group of locals in Galilee became widespread in the empire with the leadership of Paul.

But is it historical? Many argue that it was sheer fabrication.

I was lectured in my undergraduate days by Professor Blaiklock an acclaimed classical scholar. I attended lectures where he lauded the historicity of Luke's historical writings. He presented much material indicating Luke's acute awareness of local customs and dialects, some within specific time frames. Luke's unique historical writing and its style rewrote the nature of ancient historical writings.

He often stated that the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and Paul's writings far exceeded the evidence upon which people accept that Julius Caesar invaded Britain.

On Paul the Prof believed he ranked alongside Plato and Aristotle as one of the three greatest minds of antiquity.

I continue to be intrigued by your refusal to cite meaningful critiques of scholars such as N T Wright and William Lane Craig and their like. Have you ever listened to material available on a site such as veritas.org? Or bethinking.org?

Your surmising is little more than that, and your sources, like you, don't engage in well founded debate with men like those I mentioned. It may well be the age old question faced by sceptics "What would I do if I did find truth?"

John
NZ

 

[GakuseiDon]

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?

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.

No, it isn't, merle. You are using an abbreviated quote that deliberately gives a false impression of what is being claimed. You can easily check this for yourself. The text is below. I've highlighted what you've left out in blue:
Octavius of Minucius Felix (Roberts-Donaldson)

...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve.
​

The claim by the pagan in the story is that Christians worship a wicked man, not that they worship a man. That's why the antagonist in the story is charging that Christians "worship what they deserve": Christians must be wicked because they worship a wicked man. Read through the original quote and check it out for yourself.

May I suggest that you start doubting Doherty, rather than accepting whatever he claims? I don't mean you should stop believing his theories; but at least approach his quotes as something that might be worth verifying. Otherwise, what flavour do you want that Koolaid?

 

[ElijahW]

Correct. That is why I took care not to mention the name of the book, or to do anything that could be interpreted as selling a book.

There is no charge to click the link and read the evidence that is there.

When you keep spamming a link to that is trying to sell a book that according to the author actually holds the evidence then it’s going to look like a sales pitch. I don’t actually think that’s what you are doing but instead are trying to hide behind a bunch of text online so you don’t have to actually support your position.

Sigh.
In case you missed it, here again is where you can find the case for a mythical Jesus. I said:

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.
Also, my viewpoint was summarized in the opening post.

Let’s pretend I’m not a liar and am familiar with this theory and have found it lacking and the author completely unaware of the argument going on back then within philosophy and Christianity. That being the imagined case; let’s pretend that you actually have to support the position instead of pretending Doherty’s website is some kind of evidence here.

Please read the link I mentioned. The case has nothing to do with "the evidence for the other side isn’t as good as it should be." The case for the mythical Jesus is that analysis of the available early writings of Christianity indicates it is more consistant with a mythical Jesus than a historical Jesus. Later Christian writings--after 70 AD--do stress an earthly Jesus, but those accounts have been criticised as heavily biased, and they don't tie in well with the exalted view of Christ that Paul shows for his Jesus. Could it be that both the traditions of Paul and Mark come from a savior/messiah mentality of the time, with no link between the heavenly savior of Paul and the earthly messiah of Mark until later writers created the link?

You say in one sentence the case has nothing to do with the evidence not being good enough and then go into why the historical accounts aren’t good enough to be used as evidence.

Note that we are not complaining about the lack of evidence (although we all wish there was more). The issue is that the available evidence seems to point to a mythical Jesus.

You’re not complaining about the lack of evidence you are begging the question that the evidence should be limited to Paul’s letters and Hebrews because the Gospels come at a date too late. I’m choosing to ignore this because I think it’s a waste of energy to try to get a skeptic to stop being skeptical and instead try to get you to produce what you think happened actually. The hope being that your ability in skepticism will help you see the alternatives are unsupported and hard to figure out a time line for.

No unbiased jury is going to have a problem deciding the case because an examining attorney on the case is not also a witness. I am here as an examining attorney--to stick with your courtroom metaphor--not a witness.

Please look up at the top of the screen where it says "Exploring Christianity". We are here to explore Christianity, not to argue for alternatives. I have presented enough of the alternative to ask you how you respond to those views, but I am not here to argue those views. (OK, sometimes I need to hold myself back, but that is really not the purpose of being here.) I am here to see if you can provide adequate answers to the challenges that people make concerning your faith.

And yes, to go back to your courtroom metaphor, I have called a witness, Earl Doherty. And I have even pointed out where he is available for cross examination if you desire.

I imagine you as the attorney but I think you are trying to act like the judge by not presenting your case of what you think happened actually. You cross examined the evidence and feel that the historical accounts are too late to be valid. We get that. Now let’s look at your account and have a chance for the historical side to cross examine.

You presented Doherty as an expert witness, who while isn’t available for cross examination presently, has previously on cross examination shown to not be an expert or have support for his understanding of Paul. You can find someone who believes anything online but that doesn’t make it evidence or them an expert witness in your defense of a non historical Jesus.

You need to layout what you think happened for our imaginary jury. Right now all you’ve done is present a guy you found online who thinks that there should be more historical information in a few letters about Jesus if he was historical but written by people who didn’t know him.

That's why I didn't say that. Please look at what I said.

I am looking and waiting for you to say what you think happened instead of promoting some online author’s theory. I’m tired of talking about Doherty, I would like to know what you think if that’s ok?

I have summarized the case, but I don't have time to write the many pages needed to lay out all of the case.
Why exactly do I need to lay out the case, if it has already been layed out elsewhere? Wouldn't that be a wasted duplication of effort?
Sure, I could take the time to study what Doherty wrote, and make a website as valuable as Doherty's, but who would that benefit? All that would do is make two websites with the same content.
The interested reader who is interested in learning about the case for the mythical Jesus, rather than playing games demanding multiple duplications of the same work, can go to that link and read it for themselves. Then they can come back here and give their response to that evidence.

We are on page 20 of you asking a question you know the answer to so let’s not act like time is of the essence for you here. The most important thing here is for you to explain what you think really happened. Everyone here already knows the historical account we are given but we don’t know the alternative historical account you think actually happened.

I know it may seem like a waste of energy but if you want the truth to get out there then maybe take a few paragraphs to explain what you think actually happened. Imagine you had to make a movie of how Christianity really started and give a brief synapses.

Ok, Acts was written to explan how a gospel taught to a group of locals in Galilee became widespread in the empire with the leadership of Paul.

But is it historical? Many argue that it was sheer fabrication.

Many argue whatever suits their biases and agendas. But obviously it is meant to be historical. Is it accurate? Probably not. But to a degree that makes it impossible to get the important aspects? Like the continued persecution and imitation of Jesus’ sacrifice and how it influenced those around the act. I don’t think so. It may not happen like depicted but the basic idea gets through. Same thing with the Gospels.

Really? I thought we were trying to establish if Paul thought Jesus was a man who recently walked on earth with his peers, or was a heavenly savior who did his salvation work in a mythical sphere.

Are you sure you hopped on the right thread?

No, there is two points going on here. This is about establishing what evidenced would look like of a historical figure back then. You chose Paul and Jesus ben Stada. You are trying to show what a normal output for a historical figure would be here; not if he thought Jesus was crucified in heaven. It would be related to why you expect more evidence and dismiss other.

Galations 1 & 2 Cor. 11.

The fact that we have seven books authored by Paul is good evidence that Paul existed. Yes, Paul might have been using a penname, but still we know that the man who called himself Paul and wrote these books must have existed.

The only alternative is that the books were written by committee or evolved over a long period of time with no distinct author. I'm no expert on such things, but since the consensus seems to be that these books were written by a single man, not be a committee, we therefore can deduce that the writer of Romans and the other 6 books must have existed.

That someone existed yes but what do we know about him from unbiased/untampered with sources? We are trying to establish what historical mark would be left for someone back then similar to Jesus. That those writings are a mark of someone existing is a given but you need to support whatever life you think he lived, when, where, how he died... stuff like that. What historians do we go to hear about Paul converting gentiles to Christianity? It doesn’t matter if you find them reliable, we are only trying to see if the evidence of this known historical figure is on par with Jesus Christ.

I cor 15:39-44

39

All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
40There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42)So also is the resurrection of the dead It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

That has to do with the body being considered flawed because of the fundamental nature of matter. This was standard thinking that comes from Platonic duality where the spiritual is eternal and the material is temporal. So if the Torah and prophecy are true then by their reasoning the body we existed in before the fall and would exist in the future would be changed from the presently flawed material way to a spiritual form.

But you can see from the passages before and after that, the concern is pulling off the same thing that Jesus did, not anything about a sacrifice in heaven that saves them.

15:12Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.​

50I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

"Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?"​

His resurrection was the basis of the hope of their own resurrection. A story about a resurrection of something that happened just in heaven is of no concern to a person on earth looking for a way around death… not only for themselves but the whole world.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Also, Paul mentioned Pilate twice.
Luke recorded one of Paul's sermons in Acts chapter 13, where we read:
Acts 13:28 "And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain."

That depends if you think Acts is historical. Many think Acts was a made up story written many years later. Why do you think it is historical?

Interestingly, when Peter and Paul "talk" in Acts, they sound very much like each other, and like the writer of Acts, instead of like the Peter of the gospels, or the Paul of the epistles. Could it be the writer is just putting words into their mouths?

Also, Paul mentioned Pilate in his first epistle to Timothy, where we read:
I Timothy 6:13 "I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession..."

And how do you know Paul wrote 1 Timothy? There is good reason to believe this book was written later by somebody other than Paul.

Just off the top of my head, I recall where Paul clearly stated what the Lord said while on earth, when he said:
I Corinthians 11:23 "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

We already covered this. The sacred meal here is close to the sacred meal of Mithras and other savior cults. Paul and Mark both indepently seem to be applying that tradition to Jesus.

You should also note how Paul mentioned "the same night in which he was betrayed."

I say this because you previously stated that Paul never mentioned Judas.

The word translated betrayed means "delivered up" http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3860&t=KJV. It could refer to the night Jesus was delivered to do his saving work in a heavenly realm.

Who said that Paul never addressed the incarnation?

You?

From what I've read thus far, you're far from a reliable witness.
I Timothy 1:15 "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

What do you suppose "came into the world" means?

It means that Christ was incarnate.

I Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Again you are in I Timothy.

I Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are widely regarded to be second century works by somebody other than Paul. It is no surprise that these writers might have heard of an earthly Jesus.

Man, you've really got a lot to learn..

Yes, I have a lot to learn. We all have a lot to learn.
Just curious: Would you say that you also have a lot to learn?

...and the wrong attitude to do so.

I am sorry to hear that you see that in me.

Can you explain how you know I have the wrong attitude? After all, you can't see my facial expression, or hear my tone of voice. All you have is my words. So if I have a wrong attitude, the only way you would know that is if my words said something that conveyed a wrong attitude. Can you please echo back which words of mine convinced you that I have the wrong attitude? If my words are not expressing the sincerity with which I ask, then please let me know which words give a bad impression, and I will correct it.

Oh, and just curious, but would you say you have the right attitude? Should I emulate you in my attitude?

What in the world are you talking about?

Can you read or are you so used to cherry-picking scriptures that you've become unable to think under the guise of being a thinker?

Hmmm.

And if I wrote like this, would that indicate I was now reflecting a better attitude?

Back up a little bit and see what you read, okay?

Here, I'll help you:

Hebrews 5:5-7 "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared..."

Who IN THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH.

What do you suppose that means?

Jesus was incarnate.

I suppose it could mean that. But the phrase "the days of his flesh" could have many meanings. If you only had Hebrews to go by, would you be saying this verse says "days of his flesh"; therefore God must have had flesh; therefore he must have come to earth as a human virtually indistinquishable from other humans; therefore Hebrews 9 must describe salvation on earth? Would you get that from a reading of Hebrews?

While incarnate, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able TO SAVE HIM FROM DEATH.
You know, like when He cried out to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane.

Well yes, the writer does refer to his prayers and tears, but it doesn't say where. This doesn't mean that Hebrews thought he was on earth recently in contact with the writer's peers.

IOW, don't bother misquoting from chapter 9.
Some of us have read the entire epistle.

Please read Hebrews 9. Based only on what you see in Hebrews, where did the work of redemption occur? In heaven or on earth? Based on this book only, would you conclude that his death on earth at Calvary had anything to do with redemption?

I could also point out the grievous extent of your error by actually commenting on the verses from the Old Testament that the writer of the epistle of the Hebrews just cited, but I won't bother to do so for now.

Yes, yes, please do comment on the Old Testament verses that Hebrews is quoting. I'm interested in what you have to say about them.

Try taking off the blinders and you'll see just fine.

Let me see if I have this straight: Are you saying that if I wrote words like this, that you would consider that to be a better attitude than the attitude I have now?

I'll try to address some of the important points as I have time, but obviously I don't have time to respond to everything here.

How convenient.

You've had plenty of time to spout your error, but are you now too busy to admit it?

Interesting. So I'm looking at all these posts addressed to me, and you suggest that this is some kind of convenient excuse to keep from addressing you? Are you serious? With all these posts coming up here, and with a limited amount of time to spend here, I need to decide which posts are most important to respond to.

But anyway, you now have my attention. Let's talk. What's on your mind?
　
-----------------

Correction: It probably is not reasonable to think Mark and Paul independently came up with the same idea of eucharist as I stated above. Rather, they both probably used a common source. See post 243.