Did Jesus Exist?

[AlexBP]

If Matthew and Luke had sources besides Mark for the naratives, why did they copy Mark, often word for word, when the story appeared in Mark?

In some instances Matthew and Luke did copy Mark word for word while in other instances they did not, and instead offer competing versions of a certain event, speech, or parable. Scholars have thrown a lot of effort into trying to analyze the various changes that we made from Mark by Matthew and Luke and speculated quite a bit about why it may have happened. In many cases it involves leaping to conclusions based on only a few words or sentences and I don't personally believe that there's much merit to be found in that sort of thing. However, speaking generally, the differences that are evident between the three synoptic gospels are similar to the changes that are known to arise when material is transmitted in an oral tradition, or when oral and written traditions exist side-by-side. Such changes include things like additional lines of dialogue, extra ornamentation, and other minor things. Hence it suggests that Mark Matthew, and Luke may all have been working with various sets of oral and written sources.

 

[AlexBP]

If they were both using multiple sources for sayings of Jesus, why is there not a broad range of sayings that appear only in one of those two gospels? It appears that both writers attempted to use almost all of Q in their gospels, indicating they must both have been using the same source for their sayings material.

There is a lot of material that appears exclusively in Luke or exclusively in Matthew. I've found this handy graphic to illustrate the point:

The material unique to one of the other includes a large number of saying in addition to narrative material. For example, in Luke the majority of the parables and teachings of Jesus covered in chapters 10 to 18 does not appear in Mark or Matthew. And, as I said, I personally do think that the existence of Q is quite likely, but I also believe that they had other sources. The reasons are complex but the main points are that:

- In the portions unique to Luke, we find a lot of language that is best explained if it was written in Aramaic first and then translated in Greek. If so, then Luke was not writing it, but copying from elsewhere.

- The portion of Luke (ch.10-18) called the 'travel narrative' is styled similar to a rabbinic midrash, which again shows that it probably existed in Aramaic first.

- There are church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch who apparently had access to the same material that Matthew had but which is not included in Mark or Luke. Ignatius did not quote anything that appears in Mark. Hence it seems likely that Ignatius had access to the same addition source (whether written or oral is unknown) that Matthew had.

 

[doubtingmerle]

??? Aren't you insisting that this is a question of where? Aren't you claiming that Paul thought that Jesus never walked on earth? It's your claim! Please clarify your claim.

I answered this in the very first post I sent to you. I said, "We seem to be discussing the mailing address of the gods. Why is that important? Pardon me for asking, but who cares if a letter from Attis would have had a return address from a place on earth, on Mars, in an alternate universe, or in a remote heaven? "

Once more, I am not interested in discussing the mailing address that the Greek gods would have had. If you are interested in that discussion, take it up with somebody else, please.

A good case can be made that Paul and his followers thought of Jesus as a mythical being. (A good case can also be made that his Jesus was thought of as an historical person.) The title of this thread is, "Did Jesus Exist?" (meaning did he exist on earth as a historical person), not "I know for sure that Jesus did not exist." I am not claiming to know one way or the other, but I think the preponderance of the evidence goes to the mythical interpretation.

OK, if Paul thought Jesus was not observed on earth as a recent human, there are many mailing addresses Paul could have been thinking of when he told of his Jesus. Was he relating that his Jesus was crucified on a remote uninhabited island? In the uppoer atmosphere? On the moon? In heaven? In an alternate universe? Or was he simply telling a myth with no geography in mind? Was it understood as symbolic? It doesn't make a big difference to me.

I don't know what mailing address the greeks assigned to their savior gods, or, if Paul was speaking of a mythical Jesus, what mailing address he thought he had.

It is you, not I, that insists we must discuss where it would have happened.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And GakuseiDon, why do you insist that we need to debate the question of where? Is ElijahW right or wrong to insist that asking "Where?" indicates that the person asking the question doesn't understand what is going on?

Merle, it looks to me that you have no evidence, and you are trying to dodge that fact. This is the same thing that Doherty does. Make your claim -- if you are making a claim -- and present your evidence. Otherwise I'm not interested. Thanks.

I see. You come on this thread insisting that we must discuss the location of the Greek gods, even though nobody here is interested. ElijahW even goes so far to condemn strongly those who ask the question of "where" about the greek gods.

And you have not comment on this? You cannot tell us if you agree or disagree with ElijahW in his condemnation for asking the "where" question?

 

[GakuseiDon]

I see. You come on this thread insisting that we must discuss the location of the Greek gods, even though nobody here is interested...

Once more, I am not interested in discussing the mailing address that the Greek gods would have had. If you are interested in that discussion, take it up with somebody else, please...

It is you, not I, that insists we must discuss where it would have happened.

Back on page 8 in this thread, you wrote:

Doherty is interpreting Paul as meaning that Jesus did his work in a heavenly sphere in a manner similar to the Greek gods. There were plenty of people who taught about the sphere of the Greek gods.​

On the FRDB thread, you wrote to Doherty:

"I think your views are probably the best explanation of what happened (but we probably will never truly know for sure.)"
​

So I was interested in why you thought Doherty's views were probably the best explanation. Was it based on the evidence? That's why I came over here.

I honestly can't see how you think that Doherty probably has the best explanation with "Jesus did his work in a heavenly sphere in a manner similar to the Greek gods" and not be interested in investigating whether there is evidence on the pagan side about the Greek gods.

It's like someone claiming that "Jesus was crucified, like Horus!" and when asked "What is the evidence for Horus being crucified?" the person responds "I'm not interested in Horus! Take it up with someone else!" Surely, if you think Doherty probably has the best explanation, and Doherty's explanation involves comparing Paul with pagan beliefs, you should be a LITTLE interested in investigating the pagan side?

Doherty's view is that Jesus was born, crucified, buried and raised in some realm above the earth (though he has moved away from the "born" part in his recent book), and he claims that this is the how the "average pagan" thought about how their ancient myths of the gods were played out. Note that the point of contention is NOT where the gods live now, but where they acted out their myths.

It is this that Doherty, when pressed for evidence, states his statement was "too stark", and that there is no direct evidence in ancient pagan writings to support such a view. I mean, reread Doherty's "too stark" comment. Do you think he is actually saying there is no direct evidence in pagan writings to support the idea that the gods lived in the heavens??? I don't think you understand Doherty's theory if you think that gods living in heaven is the point of contention.

ElijahW even goes so far to condemn strongly those who ask the question of "where" about the greek gods.

And you have not comment on this? You cannot tell us if you agree or disagree with ElijahW in his condemnation for asking the "where" question?

I'm afraid not. I'm only interested in your claims on the Greek gods and that Doherty's views "are probably the best explanation of what happened", though I suspect that I am more interested in your claims than you are.

The claim is "that Jesus did his work in a heavenly sphere in a manner similar to the Greek gods". If you have no idea whether Doherty is right or not about the pagans believing their myths were played out in a heavenly sphere, just let me know. I'll leave you alone to do your investigation.

If you think Doherty is right about the pagan beliefs, but you don't know of any evidence to support him, that's fine. Most Doherty supporters simply believe Doherty without looking into the evidence.

If you think Doherty is right AND you believe you know the evidence, present the evidence.

I don't mind that you believe Doherty or think he probably has the best explanation, even if you don't know of any evidence to support him. Lots of Doherty supporters are the same. People should be free to believe whatever they like. But I'm just interested in the evidence. So, as you don't appear to have evidence, I will make this my last post on this matter. Thanks for your time, merle.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Back on page 8 in this thread, you wrote:

Doherty is interpreting Paul as meaning that Jesus did his work in a heavenly sphere in a manner similar to the Greek gods. There were plenty of people who taught about the sphere of the Greek gods.
​

On the FRDB thread, you wrote to Doherty:

"I think your views are probably the best explanation of what happened (but we probably will never truly know for sure.)"
​

So I was interested in why you thought Doherty's views were probably the best explanation. Was it based on the evidence? That's why I came over here.

The mailing address of the mythical Jesus is a minor part of Doherty's writings.

The emphasis is that the four gospels and Acts were written at least 40 years after the reported life of Jesus on earth (Doherty thinks at least 60). That is a long time after the reported events. If we turn for evidence to those books that were written earlier, we see a very different story from the four gospels. Paul emphasizes a divine Jesus doing a heavenly work of salvation, but makes no clear statement that Jesus was human, or had recently walked on earth in contact with humans.

Paul emphasizes that he did not get his gospel from the other disciples, but rather got it from revelation. Paul's gospel appears to come from a mixture of the Hebrew scriptures and Greek savior myths. Paul nowhere shows a clear reliance on the gospel tradition of the four gospels. If Jesus did live on earth, Paul shows very little interest in what those who would have witnessed the event might have to say about that event.

If Paul was teaching his gospel based on scripture, claimed revelation, and greek myth, instead of the testimony of witnesses, how do you know that his gospel is historically correct, or even intended to be historical?

By contrast, the hypothesized book Q may mention some storys of an earthy Jesus, but we see no evidence that it suggests Jesus was divine or was crucified for our salvation. It apparently only describes an earthly originator of a Q community.

So with no clear writing describing the Jesus of the 4 gospels before Mark, the obvious question is whether Mark has any historical validity.

None of this has anything to do with the location where the mythical Jesus was thought to have done his work.

I honestly can't see how you think that Doherty probably has the best explanation with "Jesus did his work in a heavenly sphere in a manner similar to the Greek gods" and not be interested in investigating whether there is evidence on the pagan side about the Greek gods.

I am interested in the Greek gods. I had understood they were thought to live and work in a heavenly sphere. Now that I know there is a dispute about where they lived and worked, I want to study that further. But I am no expert on the mailing address of the Greek gods, and I have no interest in picking a location and defending that location as the correct answer to the controversy. The basic claims about the mythical Jesus stand, regardless of where the Greeks thought their gods lived.

This is not Real Estate. The three Ls of Doherty's ideas are not Location, Location and Location.

It's like someone claiming that "Jesus was crucified, like Horus!" and when asked "What is the evidence for Horus being crucified?" the person responds "I'm not interested in Horus! Take it up with someone else!"

If I was empasizing location and then had no interest in location, you would have a point. But this thread is not titled "Where did Jeus live?". That is not what this is about.

Doherty's view is that Jesus was born, crucified, buried and raised in some realm above the earth (though he has moved away from the "born" part in his recent book), and he claims that this is the how the "average pagan" thought about how their ancient myths of the gods were played out. Note that the point of contention is NOT where the gods live now, but where they acted out their myths.

Doherty's emphasis is not that Jesus was tried and crucified by Pilate in the heavens, but that Jesus was never tried and crucified by Pilate. You get hung up on the location, and that is minor to what Doherty is saying.

 

[GakuseiDon]

Thank you for providing content, merle. I'm happy to continue on that basis.

The mailing address of the mythical Jesus is a minor part of Doherty's writings.

Actually, I think it is the major part of it, and I don't see how you can avoid the implications of where he locates Jesus. But let's put that aside for now.

The emphasis is that the four gospels and Acts were written at least 40 years after the reported life of Jesus on earth (Doherty thinks at least 60). That is a long time after the reported events.

A long time for us, but fairly standard when we are examining ancient texts.

If we turn for evidence to those books that were written earlier, we see a very different story from the four gospels. Paul emphasizes a divine Jesus doing a heavenly work of salvation, but makes no clear statement that Jesus was human, or had recently walked on earth in contact with humans.

I think we can quibble over 'recently', but I spend time in my review on Paul. Paul rarely dates ANY event. When did Paul see the Risen Christ? When did the others? People back then didn't appear to be concerned by dating these things as we do today. If Paul rarely dates ANY event, then it can hardly be surprising if he doesn't put a date on the crucifixion or when Jesus walked the earth.

And Paul talks about Jesus being a man (anthropos), "Seed of Abraham", "seed of David", etc. These are attributes of men, not angels or gods. Doherty argues otherwise, but he is arguing against the plain reading of the text. Read the following, for example, and tell me what you think:

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came
​

Isn't the above statement fairly clear? Paul's references to those mortal characteristics in most situations seem to relate to Christ before his crucifixion, like Rom 9 above.

Paul emphasizes that he did not get his gospel from the other disciples, but rather got it from revelation.

True. Though "gospel" here means "Paul's gospel message", which was that Christ means salvation to the gentiles. It doesn't mean everything he knew about Christ.

Paul had been persecuting Christians before he converted, and after conversion it was claimed that he was preaching the same things that those he were persecuting had been preaching.

Now, it doesn't make sense that the Risen Christ told Paul the same things that the ones he had been persecuting had believed, and then for Paul to say he got it from no man!

I think that Paul was preaching the standard message that those he had persecuted had preached, but his gospel message -- the point of departure from the other apostles -- was that Christ meant salvation had come to the gentiles.

Paul's gospel appears to come from a mixture of the Hebrew scriptures and Greek savior myths. Paul nowhere shows a clear reliance on the gospel tradition of the four gospels. If Jesus did live on earth, Paul shows very little interest in what those who would have witnessed the event might have to say about that event.

Why did he go to James and Peter to get them to validate his gospel message, then? After all, Paul had had a revelation from Christ himself.

If Paul was teaching his gospel based on scripture, claimed revelation, and greek myth, instead of the testimony of witnesses, how do you know that his gospel is historically correct, or even intended to be historical?

Paul's gospel message was that Christ meant salvation had come to the gentiles. I don't think that his gospel message contained historical claims (other than perhaps "Jesus was crucified, and it is Good News For Ancient Man!")

By contrast, the hypothesized book Q may mention some storys of an earthy Jesus, but we see no evidence that it suggests Jesus was divine or was crucified for our salvation. It apparently only describes an earthly originator of a Q community.

So with no clear writing describing the Jesus of the 4 gospels before Mark, the obvious question is whether Mark has any historical validity.

Well, no it isn't. At least not for me. I'm not worried about the historicity of Mark. I think that Mark was a type of hagiography or propaganda, so it is difficult to work out which parts are historical, if any.

But see what we've covered above. if Paul thought that Jesus was a man, descendent of people they thought actually existed (like Abraham and David), and came from the Israelites; and Q mentions some stories about an earthy Jesus that was not divine; then don't you have reasonable grounds for thinking that Jesus was historical?

I think what Paul DOES say has to trump what Paul DOESN'T say. Are there any statements in Paul that would lead you to think that Paul didn't regard Jesus as historical and on earth, at least before the crucifixion?

None of this has anything to do with the location where the mythical Jesus was thought to have done his work.

Obviously it is on earth, given what we have from Paul and from Q. Where else could it be? Where else could someone who was a man, descendant from Biblical figures, came from the Israelites, be expected to do their work? This is where Doherty's theories start to take on importance.

If the only place in the extant literature where pagans and early Christians placed these things was on earth, then Doherty's views are dead in the water. OTOH, evidence for a non-earthly location will obviously support Doherty.

I am interested in the Greek gods. I had understood they were thought to live and work in a heavenly sphere. Now that I know there is a dispute about where they lived and worked, I want to study that further.

Again, the dispute is about where the myths were played out. It isn't "where they live." For example, God was thought to live in the sky, but that doesn't mean that the story of Noah's ark was thought to have been set in the sky. Zeus was thought to live in the sky, but when he took on the form of a bull to seduce a mortal woman, that wasn't thought to have happened in the sky. You need to be clear on this if you want to investigate the pagan side of Doherty's theories.

But I am no expert on the mailing address of the Greek gods, and I have no interest in picking a location and defending that location as the correct answer to the controversy. The basic claims about the mythical Jesus stand, regardless of where the Greeks thought their gods lived.

This is not Real Estate. The three Ls of Doherty's ideas are not Location, Location and Location.

:lol:

 

[doubtingmerle]

In some instances Matthew and Luke did copy Mark word for word while in other instances they did not, and instead offer competing versions of a certain event, speech, or parable.

Can you give me an example, please, of a significant story from Matthew that is repeated in Mark, in which the two do not show obvious signs that one was copying the other? Changing words or adding lines does not make them independent sources of information if much of the story is clearly copied from the other writer (or both copying a common source).

However, speaking generally, the differences that are evident between the three synoptic gospels are similar to the changes that are known to arise when material is transmitted in an oral tradition, or when oral and written traditions exist side-by-side. Such changes include things like additional lines of dialogue, extra ornamentation, and other minor things.

But had the story happened, wouldn't we be expecting independent accounts. After all, there were 12 disciples to tell the stories. Why doesn't one book tell the story in a way that it looks like it comes from somebody else's perspective? Why do the storys in Mark that are repeated in Matthew look so much like they were copied from the same source.

And if there were multiple sources available, why does Matthew consistently follow Mark on any story that Mark relates? If Matthew had other sources, one would think that Matthew would occasionally turn to one of his other sources on a story that Mark tells, and proceed with that other version instead of copying Mark with minor changes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is a lot of material that appears exclusively in Luke or exclusively in Matthew. I've found this handy graphic to illustrate the point:

Thanks for sharing this. It is an interesting chart.

Notice that it says 94% of the content of Mark is repeated in Matthew. And as we discussed, much of that is nearly word for word, indicating strongly that Matthew copied.

If Mark had turned in his work as a term paper in college, and the next year Matthew turned in his book for the same class, Matthew would have surely gotten a bad grade, for he obviously copied from somebody else's term paper.

Yes, there is much content that is unique to Matthew or Luke. But wherever that happens, we find the other author nowhere close to the story told to the other. If Mark is silent on a story, then Matthew and Luke differ widely on their reporting (e.g. the nativity and the resurection accounts).

 

[doubtingmerle]

When did Paul see the Risen Christ? When did the others?

Paul's vision of the resurrected Christ obviosly occured in his lifetime, and he claims his peers also saw the resurrected Christ in their lifetimes. However Paul makes no distinction between what he saw and what the others saw, and since Paul saw a vision, is it possible that they were all merely claiming to see a vision of the risen Christ?

The popularity of claiming to see a vision does not mean the event happened on earth.

And Paul talks about Jesus being a man (anthropos), "Seed of Abraham", "seed of David", etc. These are attributes of men, not angels or gods.

Earlier on this thread, I pointed out that Paul took a promise that Abraham would have many descendents, and spirtualizes it to mean one particular descendent, the Messiah. If Paul was taking Gen 15:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2015&version=NASB ) out of context to give it a spiritual meaning, how do you know that he was not also spiritualizing what it means to be a descendent?

Elsewhere Paul uses the term "sons of Abraham" to refer to all those who have faith, even if they were not literal descendents. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3:7&version=NASB) . So when Paul refers to a person as the seed of Abraham, he does not necessarily mean the physical descendent.

Doherty argues otherwise, but he is arguing against the plain reading of the text. Read the following, for example, and tell me what you think:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came

Isn't the above statement fairly clear? Paul's references to those mortal characteristics in most situations seem to relate to Christ before his crucifixion, like Rom 9 above.

Interesting, I ask for a clear statement that Paul thought Jesus was human, and the best you can come up with is something that is "fairly clear"?

One can only put so much weight on a single phrase --"according to the flesh"--which is disputed in meaning.

Paul emphasizes that he did not get his gospel from the other disciples, but rather got it from revelation.

True. Though "gospel" here means "Paul's gospel message", which was that Christ means salvation to the gentiles. It doesn't mean everything he knew about Christ.

Let's see. Here is Galations 1: 11-12.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (NASB)
​

Let's change "gospel I preached" to "my message that Christ means salvation to the gentiles" as you suggest. Then we get:

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that my message that Christ means salvation to the gentiles is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
​

Can you see how some might think you inserted something into the text that was not actually there? Paul was talking about his gospel, not about the target audience of his message.

Paul had been persecuting Christians before he converted, and after conversion it was claimed that he was preaching the same things that those he were persecuting had been preaching.

Paul says he presecuted the church of God, but he doesn't tell us exactly what he did, who he did it to, and what he knew about those he persecuted.

But he is quite clear that the source of his message was revelation, and was not what he heard from others.

Now, it doesn't make sense that the Risen Christ told Paul the same things that the ones he had been persecuting had believed, and then for Paul to say he got it from no man!

And yet that is exactly what Paul says!

Though Paul may have heard the teachings of others, he is emphatic that the basis of his own message is his own personal revelation, not the witness of others.

If Paul's message was obtained partly form listening to many witnesses who told him of the earthly Jesus, then it would have been inexcusable not to give those witnesses credit. How dare he say he did not get his message from man, if he was so deeply indebted to those witnesses? So unless Paul was exceedingly rude and ungrateful, it seems reasonable to assume that Paul heard nobody witness that Jesus had recently been seen on earth.

With many variations of the Christ story out there, we really don't know what those of the "church of God" that Paul was persecting actually taught. Early documents indicate the early Christians were extremely varied in belief. Paul himself condemns many within the church that he thought were teaching a wrong gospel. With all that variation in the early Christian faith, it is difficult to guess exactly what that early "church of God" that Paul was persecuting believed.

Why did he go to James and Peter to get them to validate his gospel message, then? After all, Paul had had a revelation from Christ himself.

A better question is, why didn't he do that? For Paul declares that he didn't even go to see Peter and James until 3 years after his conversion, and then he went only to "get acquainted with Cephas" (Gal 1:18). Had Peter walked three years on earth with the incarnate God, one would expect that Paul would have gone eagerly to learn from Peter, and would have given credit to Peter as a source of his message. Instead, Paul says he received his gospel from no man.

the obvious question is whether Mark has any historical validity.

Well, no it isn't. At least not for me. I'm not worried about the historicity of Mark. I think that Mark was a type of hagiography or propaganda, so it is difficult to work out which parts are historical, if any.

Interesting. If Mark was writing "propaganda", then the question of whether Jesus existed requires a nuanced answer.

Let me illustrate. Did Santa Claus exist? Well, a man referred to as Saint Nicholas probably existed long ago, and he was later said to be nicknamed "Santa Claus". Many legends grew up around him. So a core belief in a generous man may be true, but the legends are clearly false. So to answer the question, "Did Santa Clause exist?" requires a nuanced response.

But see what we've covered above. if Paul thought that Jesus was a man, descendent of people they thought actually existed (like Abraham and David), and came from the Israelites; and Q mentions some stories about an earthy Jesus that was not divine; then don't you have reasonable grounds for thinking that Jesus was historical?

We can't be sure of exactly what Q said, but it appears to have mentioned a leader of the Q community that may or may not have been named Jesus. As far as we can tell, this community taught nothing about salvation through the cross of Christ, or about the leader being divine.

So we now come to our nuanced answer to the question, "Did Jesus exist?" There were many sects in Palestine, and most had leaders. Since the name "Jesus" was a common name, there may have been one or more such leaders named Jesus in Palestine. Perhaps some of those leaders--perhaps even one or more named Jesus--formed part of the basis of the legends that became the four gospels.

An earthly man could have been the inspiration for the "Jesus" found in Q, but a good case can be made that no earthly man was the inspiration for Paul's Jesus.

I think what Paul DOES say has to trump what Paul DOESN'T say. Are there any statements in Paul that would lead you to think that Paul didn't regard Jesus as historical and on earth, at least before the crucifixion?

I don't know anywhere that Paul specifically denies an eartly Jesus, but he never denies an earthly Santa Claus either. If nobody was claiming that an earthly divine messiah had recently died and resurrected on earth, and nobody was claiming that Santa Claus lived at the North Pole, then Paul would have had no need to mention them

If the only place in the extant literature where pagans and early Christians placed these things was on earth, then Doherty's views are dead in the water. OTOH, evidence for a non-earthly location will obviously support Doherty.

If these things all hapened on earth, than Paul is dead in the water! For he states that he was crucified with Christ!

If Paul was crucified with Christ, tell me please, where exactly was it that Paul and Christ were crucified together? If Christ's crucifixion can only be interpreted as a literal crucifixion on earth, than was Paul's crucifixion also a literal crucifixion? And since Paul isn't God, if he was indeed literally crucified on earth with Christ, that pretty much ended Paul's career right then and there, no?

But if Paul was saying he was figuratively crucified, why could it not be that Christ was figuratively crucified?

----------------------------------

Since you are interested in location, where do you think the following occured:

Luke 10:18: ""I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning."
​

Where was Satan thought to be when he fell?

Hebrews 9:11-12 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

​

Where was this holy place that Christ was said to have entered?

Hebrews 9:21-24 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
​

Where did the writer think that true taberncacle was that Christ sprinked with his blood?

Revelation 12:7-10: "And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon The dragon and his angels waged war, and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.
​

Where was this war thought to have happened?

Revelation 16:8-9 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

​

Where was this angel thought to be when he poured out his vial upon the sun?

It sure looks to me like the New Testament writers had no problem visulizing conflicts and savior gods working in a heavenly realm.

 

[GakuseiDon]

Paul's vision of the resurrected Christ obviosly occured in his lifetime, and he claims his peers also saw the resurrected Christ in their lifetimes.

Yes. It was a fairly recent event.

However Paul makes no distinction between what he saw and what the others saw, and since Paul saw a vision, is it possible that they were all merely claiming to see a vision of the risen Christ?

That's not my point. The point is that Paul doesn't describe anything about the event. Where did it happen? What did Jesus look like? What were the circumstances?

The mythicist tends to put too much emphasis on what Paul didn't say, while ignoring that Paul simply doesn't provide much in the way of historical dating about anything. That goes for other early Christian writers and early Jewish writers as well, as I point out in my review. We need to be careful ascribing modern concepts of writing practice to people back then.

Earlier on this thread, I pointed out that Paul took a promise that Abraham would have many descendents, and spirtualizes it to mean one particular descendent, the Messiah.

I have never heard of 'spiritualizing' a statement or promise. Do you mean metaphor? allegory?

Of course, anything is possible, even that Paul was 'spiritualizing' the promise to Abraham. However, there is the face reading, and the reading from analysis of the wider text. The face reading is clear: Paul calls Christ a seed of Abraham, which is consistent with Christ being a human being. Perhaps the rest of his letters will provide a context to support a different reading, but the prima facie reading is clear.

What you are doing is what any fringe theorist does. The fringe theorist tries to devise a low probability answer, with the expectation that this then invalidates a high probability answer. But the real purpose is to shift the burden of proof.

In ancient times, how many non-historical people were thought to have ancestors who walked the earth? I tell you what: I'll give three examples of earthly people who were thought to have earthly ancestors, for every example you give of a non-earthly person who was thought to have earthly ancestors, even 'spiritualized' ones.

Elsewhere Paul uses the term "sons of Abraham" to refer to all those who have faith, even if they were not literal descendents. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3:7&version=NASB) . So when Paul refers to a person as the seed of Abraham, he does not necessarily mean the physical descendent.

In the context of Paul's use of "seed of Abraham", is there any reason to think he doesn't mean the physical descendant of Abraham? In other words, is there any reason for not accepting the prima facie reason as being the higher probability one?

Interesting, I ask for a clear statement that Paul thought Jesus was human, and the best you can come up with is something that is "fairly clear"?

Yep. What other reading is possible for Rom 9:3? How do you see it?

One can only put so much weight on a single phrase --"according to the flesh"--which is disputed in meaning.

Doherty disputes it, not surprisingly. Who else disputes it?

Anyway, I'm not putting any weight on it, though as I said before, Paul's references to "flesh" all appear to be tied to Jesus before he was crucified.

But let me remove "according to the flesh" and the middle bit to highlight what Paul is saying about the connection between the Israelites and Jesus:

"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen who are Israelites; whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came"

How do you read this? First give me the prima facie reading, and then your reading. And if your reading is different to the prima facie reading, please tell me why.

Let's see. Here is Galations 1: 11-12.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (NASB)
​

Let's change "gospel I preached" to "my message that Christ means salvation to the gentiles" as you suggest. Then we get:

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that my message that Christ means salvation to the gentiles is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
​

Can you see how some might think you inserted something into the text that was not actually there? Paul was talking about his gospel, not about the target audience of his message.

I agree, Paul was talking about his gospel. Read my review. His gospel was to "the uncircumsized". He was the apostle to the gentiles. If you have a different view, I'm happy to disagree.

And remember, we are talking about Paul's gospel, not everything that Paul knew about Jesus. When Paul says "gospel", he doesn't mean a gospel like Mark. He means "the good news" about Jesus. AFAICT, the good news wasn't about his earthly life, but his death and the implications coming from that.

Paul says he presecuted the church of God, but he doesn't tell us exactly what he did, who he did it to, and what he knew about those he persecuted.

He did it to the churches in Judea "in Christ". But agreed about the rest. Add "Paul didn't say when". And this highlights the point I gave above. Paul gives very few details about anything.

Though Paul may have heard the teachings of others, he is emphatic that the basis of his own message is his own personal revelation, not the witness of others.

If Paul's message was obtained partly form listening to many witnesses who told him of the earthly Jesus, then it would have been inexcusable not to give those witnesses credit. How dare he say he did not get his message from man, if he was so deeply indebted to those witnesses? So unless Paul was exceedingly rude and ungrateful, it seems reasonable to assume that Paul heard nobody witness that Jesus had recently been seen on earth.

Okay. A polite Paul would have included witnesses to Jesus being recently seen on earth in his letters because... why is that again?

With many variations of the Christ story out there, we really don't know what those of the "church of God" that Paul was persecting actually taught.

They taught the same things that Paul was teaching. Paul tells us this.

A better question is, why didn't he do that? For Paul declares that he didn't even go to see Peter and James until 3 years after his conversion, and then he went only to "get acquainted with Cephas" (Gal 1:18). Had Peter walked three years on earth with the incarnate God, one would expect that Paul would have gone eagerly to learn from Peter, and would have given credit to Peter as a source of his message. Instead, Paul says he received his gospel from no man.

That's right. Paul's gospel -- his mission to the gentiles and the message that Christ means salvation to them -- came from no man.

Interesting. If Mark was writing "propaganda", then the question of whether Jesus existed requires a nuanced answer.

We definitely agree here.

Let me illustrate. Did Santa Claus exist? Well, a man referred to as Saint Nicholas probably existed long ago, and he was later said to be nicknamed "Santa Claus". Many legends grew up around him. So a core belief in a generous man may be true, but the legends are clearly false. So to answer the question, "Did Santa Clause exist?" requires a nuanced response.

Agreed.

We can't be sure of exactly what Q said, but it appears to have mentioned a leader of the Q community that may or may not have been named Jesus. As far as we can tell, this community taught nothing about salvation through the cross of Christ, or about the leader being divine.

Well yes. So we have a community that didn't think Jesus was divine, similar to the Ebionites. What does that tell us? Does that support Doherty's theories about the early Christians believing Jesus was divine? I don't understand how you can write the above without thinking about the implications on mythicism.

So we now come to our nuanced answer to the question, "Did Jesus exist?" There were many sects in Palestine, and most had leaders. Since the name "Jesus" was a common name, there may have been one or more such leaders named Jesus in Palestine. Perhaps some of those leaders--perhaps even one or more named Jesus--formed part of the basis of the legends that became the four gospels.

Perhaps. Anything is possible. But again, it comes to the evidence.

An earthly man could have been the inspiration for the "Jesus" found in Q, but a good case can be made that no earthly man was the inspiration for Paul's Jesus.

No it can't. Too many references in Paul that you have to 'spiritualize' in order to explain away. A prima facie reading of Paul suggests that an earthly man was the inspiration for Paul's Jesus.

I don't know anywhere that Paul specifically denies an eartly Jesus, but he never denies an earthly Santa Claus either.

Merle, if that is a serious point, then I am embarrassed for you. You have just jumped the shark.

If nobody was claiming that an earthly divine messiah had recently died and resurrected on earth, and nobody was claiming that Santa Claus lived at the North Pole, then Paul would have had no need to mention them

OK. So since nobody was claiming that Santa Clause lived at the North Pole, then Paul had no need to mention them.

"Santa Claus" isn't part of Godwin's Law, but perhaps it should be. Ladies and gentleman, I give you the reasoning of the mythicist.

If these things all hapened on earth, than Paul is dead in the water! For he states that he was crucified with Christ!

If Paul was crucified with Christ, tell me please, where exactly was it that Paul and Christ were crucified together? If Christ's crucifixion can only be interpreted as a literal crucifixion on earth, than was Paul's crucifixion also a literal crucifixion? And since Paul isn't God, if he was indeed literally crucified on earth with Christ, that pretty much ended Paul's career right then and there, no?

But if Paul was saying he was figuratively crucified, why could it not be that Christ was figuratively crucified?

Merle, I cannot track the logic here, but let me ask you:

1. Reading Paul, does it sound like he is using figurative language when discussing how he was crucified "in Christ"?
2. Reading Paul, does it sound like he is using figurative language when discussing how Christ was crucified?

Once you have the answers to the above, come back to me. You aren't looking at the evidence now, you are trying to throw up doubts. This isn't skepticism. It isn't even doubting. It is apologetics.

Since you are interested in location, where do you think the following occured:

Luke 10:18: ""I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning."
​

Where was Satan thought to be when he fell?

In the heavens.

Hebrews 9:11-12 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

​

Where was this holy place that Christ was said to have entered?

The holy place was in heaven. Where was he before he entered the holy place?

Hebrews 9:21-24 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
​

Where did the writer think that true taberncacle was that Christ sprinked with his blood?

The tabernacle was in heaven. Where was Christ before he entered "into heaven itself"?

Revelation 12:7-10: "And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon... (snipped)
​

Where was this war thought to have happened?

In the heavens.

Revelation 16:8-9 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

​

Where was this angel thought to be when he poured out his vial upon the sun?

In the heavens.

It sure looks to me like the New Testament writers had no problem visulizing conflicts and savior gods working in a heavenly realm.

It sure does! And yet Doherty admits that there is no direct evidence to support his position. Strange that! One might even feel it is curious enough to investigate for themselves...

And strange how the very references YOU give talk about Christ entering heaven. Tell me, do you think they thought that Christ was already in heaven when they write that he entered heaven?

 

[doubtingmerle]

GakuseiDon,

I'll need to add this post to the long list of stuff I haven't had the time to respond to yet. I have time only for the bottom of your post today.

In the heavens....The holy place was in heaven...The tabernacle was in heaven...In the heavens...In the heavens.

It sure looks to me like the New Testament writers had no problem visulizing conflicts and savior gods working in a heavenly realm.

It sure does!

OK, so have we settled your location question? For it appears we agree that the New Testament writers thought that angels and demons and other heavenly beings acted in the heavens. And the New Testament audience could believe that there were wars and conflicts with satan in the heavens? And Hebrews says that Christ cleansed the heavenly temple by sprinking his own blood there?

So the argument that Paul's audience could not have thought that the crucifixion happened in a heavenly sphere has been demolished. Paul's audience has no problem accepting that such things happened there.

And yet Doherty admits that there is no direct evidence to support his position. Strange that! One might even feel it is curious enough to investigate for themselves...

Oh, please. In the opening post of the thread Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - FRDB,-- a thread that you have responded to many times--he says:

That evidence is addressed at great length in later chapters, something Don does not point out, let alone deal with here. Second, even in the above quote I introduce nuances which step away from the accusation that I state that every pagan in every context placed the savior god myths in the heavens (something I didn’t even do in The Jesus Puzzle, though I’ve admitted that it was too easy an impression). Above, I place my statement entirely in the realm of the mystery cults themselves, in the effects their beliefs had on the devotees; and the final statement is indeed accurate. We have reasonable grounds to think that within the cults and their interpretations of the myths such mythology was affected by Platonism and migrated to a great extent to the heavenly world, and this is argued extensively in JNGNM, something Don does not address. (emphasis added)

​

Further down he says:

Once again Don has recourse to quoting my “stark” statement from The Jesus Puzzle, and again quotes from JNGNM a statement also made in advance of my providing the discussion and justification for it. He states: “Once again, there is no source for this,” making no reference to the later chapters where I provide all sorts of indicators justifying the feasibility of such a conclusion—within the circle of the mystery cults themselves, as I have stated, and which his next quote from me acknowledges: “We have virtually no writings of the period on the subject to reflect those conceptions.” I have admitted this from the beginning, while at the same time pointing out why, and that we cannot expect to have the same kind of documentary evidence from the cults to peruse as we do with Christianity. But the near lack of source writings doesn’t mean we have no evidence at all on which to base some deductions. I have just referred to some of it. And in the book there is a lot of careful examination of that evidence. (Don says he will address Plutarch later, and we’ll see what that amounts to.) We may indeed be “groping in the dark,” as Don quotes me, but a lot of information can be gleaned even in the dark, since we do have other senses if we are willing to give them credence. (emphasis added)

​

I have quoted some of this to you before. When Doherty has repeatedly told you that he has evidence for his claims about the gods being thought to work in a heavenly sphere, when it has also been pointed out to you here in this thread, then why do you pretend that he agrees with you that there is no such evidence?

The point is that Paul's audience understood that storys could have been played out by heavenly beings in a heavenly sphere. So if Paul was speaking of a heavenly Jesus working in a heavenly sphere, that is totally consistent with their worldview.

And strange how the very references YOU give talk about Christ entering heaven. Tell me, do you think they thought that Christ was already in heaven when they write that he entered heaven?

Heb. 9:12 says, "He entered the holy place once for all," which could certainly mean he was moving to a different location of the heavenly sphere.

Heb. 9:24 says "For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us". Could it not simply mean the same as verse 12, in which Christ moves from another heavenly location to the holy place, the place of the "presence of God"? And if he came from outside the heavens, how do you know it refers to a human manifestation among living witnesses on earth? 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?

 

[GakuseiDon]

OK, so have we settled your location question? For it appears we agree that the New Testament writers thought that angels and demons and other heavenly beings acted in the heavens. And the New Testament audience could believe that there were wars and conflicts with satan in the heavens? And Hebrews says that Christ cleansed the heavenly temple by sprinking his own blood there?

So the argument that Paul's audience could not have thought that the crucifixion happened in a heavenly sphere has been demolished. Paul's audience has no problem accepting that such things happened there.

Merle, as I've repeatedly said, the issue is where they thought the myths were carried out. If they explicitly placed the event in heaven, then yes, they thought it happened in heaven.

Now, this debate would be over if you could produce a reference in Paul that unambiguously places Christ's crucifixion in heaven, or I could produce a reference that unambiguously places Christ's crucifixion on earth. In the absence of such unambiguity, we need to look at how Paul describes Christ and whether it is consistent with someone in heaven or on earth.

Go back to Attis for a moment. Doherty claims that the "average pagan" placed the myth in the sky. But there is no evidence for this. They placed the myth of Attis along the River Gallus in Phrygia. So what is the evidence for thinking that they thought that something happening on earth occurred in heaven? What is the reason for going against the clear reading of the text?

Do you see where I am coming from now? Remember, it is Doherty who makes the equivalence to Attis, not me. The issue isn't whether ancient pagans placed the gods in the heavens, but where they thought the myths of their gods (where the myths are not explicitly located in heaven) were thought to be played out.

I have quoted some of this to you before. When Doherty has repeatedly told you that he has evidence for his claims about the gods being thought to work in a heavenly sphere, when it has also been pointed out to you here in this thread, then why do you pretend that he agrees with you that there is no such evidence?

Well, let's produce the evidence then. Start with Attis. I know you don't want to, but it is a good litmus test for an actual claim made by Doherty. According to Doherty the average pagan thought the myth was placed in a spiritual realm. What is the evidence for this?

At some point you need to start validating Doherty's claims, merle. At the moment you are only indulging in apologetics.

The point is that Paul's audience understood that storys could have been played out by heavenly beings in a heavenly sphere. So if Paul was speaking of a heavenly Jesus working in a heavenly sphere, that is totally consistent with their worldview.

Let's be clear what you are claiming: you are saying that Paul's description of Jesus (as a man, seed of Abraham, seed of David, from the Israelites, was crucified and buried and then raised again) could be applied to someone not on earth. That is your claim, isn't it? Then please start producing the evidence.

That's what it all comes down to in the end, merle: evidence. Just make your claim and present your evidence. Isn't that a good thing to do?

My claim is this: Paul's terminology supports the idea that he thought that Jesus was a man recently crucified in Paul's immediate past. There is no evidence that Paul's terminology was used to refer to people who lived above the earth in the heavens. There is plenty of evidence that Paul's terminology was used to refer to people who lived on the earth.

There, done. I can present evidence to support my claim.

Now, your turn. What is your claim, and what is your evidence? No more list of hypothetical questions, please. No more asking "Why did Paul not mention this? Why didn't early Christians mention that?" If you think that is important, make your claim and present your evidence. For example. "Paul should have mentioned this, and the evidence for this is..."

Heb. 9:24 says "For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us". Could it not simply mean the same as verse 12, in which Christ moves from another heavenly location to the holy place, the place of the "presence of God"?

But that's not what it says. When you start asking "Could it not..." then you are admitting that the prima facie reading doesn't support you. What does the prima facie reading indicate? It tells us that Christ "entered into heaven itself". That is pretty clearcut.

If you disagree, then give your reading, make your claim and present your evidence.

My claim: Paul is saying that Christ entered heaven. His other references to Christ indicate a man. Men live on earth. Therefore Paul believed that Christ rose physically (thus blood) into heaven.

What is your claim, and what is your evidence?

And if he came from outside the heavens, how do you know it refers to a human manifestation among living witnesses on earth?

Because of how Paul describes Christ elsewhere: as a man, "seed of Abraham", "from the Israelites", etc, which was used to describe men on earth. What is your claim here, merle? That these things could be applied to beings above the earth? Are you claiming that? Then what is your evidence?

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?

Merle, throwing up questions this way isn't skepticism. It isn't even doubting. It is simple apologetics. If you think that this is important, then make a claim and present your evidence.

Is your claim that "If Jesus was recently seen on earth as a man, then Hebrews should have mentioned that part of the redemptive work happened on earth"? Is that your claim? If so, then what is your evidence?

 

[GakuseiDon]

I think that what we see with doubtingmerle often happens with the fringe theorist. It is a part of "argument by exhaustion". That is, the fringe theorist simply keeps throwing up questions rather than presenting actual claims and providing evidence, as though the questions provide arguments in themselves.

Here is an atheist complaining about a Christian's use of "argument from exhaustion". From here:

1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
2) Atheist: of course.
3) How about the slightly modified proposition X’?
4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
6) Atheist: No! And I didn’t agree with X’!
7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
8 ) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
9) I’m glad we all agree….. ….
37) So now we have used propositions X, X’, Y, Y’, Z, Z’, P, P’, Q and Q’ to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I’ve only agreed with X. Where is this going? ….
81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L”, L”’ and J” are true. Agreed?
82) I HAVEN’T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU’VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING!? ….
177) …and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ” and BTU’ are all obviously valid. Agreed?
178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust]
179) Therefore, God exists.
​

I don't doubt that merle is sincere in his questions, but surely it is obvious that this type of response is a way of avoiding explicit claims and avoiding providing actual evidence. Maybe it COULD be that when Paul writes that Christ entered "heaven itself", Paul meant that Christ was in one part of heaven and then entered another part of heaven which Paul, for some weird reason, called "heaven itself". But it isn't the face reading, nor a high probability answer, so the burden is on merle if he wants to make that claim. The burden isn't on me to establish that the face reading isn't wrong.

This is fairly typical of Doherty's argumentation style as well. "Why didn't Paul talk about X?" Doherty will frequently ask. But this is not an argument. An argument is something like "Paul should have talked about X, and the evidence for why Paul should have talked about X is...". When the mythicist is forced to start making claims, it becomes easy to see how weak their case is. Don't let them get away with asking hypothetical questions in place of arguments!

And let's not do the same things ourselves. Keep the focus on the claim and keep the focus on the evidence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Of course the gods were thought to be in the heavens, but the question is: where did the pagans think the myths were played out? When Attis was castrated on the River Gallus in Phrygia, was that some heavenly Phrygia?

The only reason I mentioned Greek myths was to show that in that day it was common to think of beings as working in the mythical realm. You repeatedly contested my understanding of Greek Mythology, and since I am not an expert on Greek Mythology, I have dropped Greek mythology until I understand it better.

Greek mythology is unnessary to understand that the ancients thought of things happening in the heavens, for I have shown you verses in the Bible that describe beings doing such things in the heavenly realm. It appears you agree that the Bible describes them doing those things in the heavenly realm. So if we can agree that people back then thought that beings did things in the heavenly realm, we know longer need to use Zeus as an example of a being that worked in a heavenly realm. Let's forget Zeus and moved on, please.

In the opening post of the thread that we were discussing Doherty says,

That evidence is addressed at great length in later chapters... I place my statement entirely in the realm of the mystery cults themselves, in the effects their beliefs had on the devotees; and the final statement is indeed accurate. We have reasonable grounds to think that within the cults and their interpretations of the myths such mythology was affected by Platonism and migrated to a great extent to the heavenly world, and this is argued extensively in JNGNM
​

When he is that emphatic that he has evidence, and that he argues the case extensively, how can you possibly say he admits he has no evidence?

So he is "that emphatic that he has evidence"? I pushed Doherty on this point, asking for his evidence. Finally, Doherty came out with the statement below. If you read the first page of my review, I quote Doherty as follows:

"The statement itself is too stark. Unfortunately, it implies that there is direct evidence from pagan writings to demonstrate it. Of course, over the years I have acknowledged to Don that this is not the case. While I have often pointed out and argued for ‘indicators’ of such a view, there is no clear and direct statement about any particular pagan mystery cult deity which says that devotees or philosophers regarded the activities of its myth as taking place in the spiritual dimension, in heavenly layers above the earth (whether above or below the moon)."
​

Huh? Are you serious?

The paragraph that I just quoted to you was Doherty's response to your comments on the now famous "stark" paragraph that you quote here. And he was responding in a thread directed to you, explaining what he means about the evidence. And yet you simply ignore his direct response to you (which I repeated above) and go back to his previous paragraph. How can you ignore his response to you, and go back to the same misunderstanding of the previous statement?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Not only would I expect an earthly incarnation of God to be the talk of the town, we all would expect it.

Why would you expect that? How many followers do you think Jesus had who could write proficiently before Paul?

Why would I expect an earthly incarnation of God to be the talk of the town? Are you serious? Can you imagine knowing that God incarnate was walking around town but nobody wanting to talk about it?


Could nobody have written about it? According to Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost:

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: "Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" (Acts 2: 5-11, NASB)
​

So you are telling me that this really happened, but among all those amazed Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc. from "every nation under heaven" there was not one person who could write it down until the book of Acts was written years later?

And if none of Jesus followers could write proficiently, do you agree with me that no books of the New Testament were written by his followers, including Matthew, John, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Relelation?

If what you write doesn’t correspond with your behavior then I’m going to say so. Sorry. "

Uh excuse me, but what behavior have I shown here other than writing words?

That's all we do on this forum: write words. If you are going to accuse me of a certain behavior, then you will need to show me what words I said that match the behavior you claim.

Telling somebody that he acted a certain way on this forum but that their are no words of his on the forum that reflect the supposed behavior seems like an empty accusation to me.

Good" is so vague here that it is completely meaningless, even when you add "very" to it. You are looking for evidence you can’t deny the validity of or you would see the Gospels as good evidence that the story started from a historical figure. If you don’t like "undeniable" then you are more than welcome to explain what exactly you are looking for in regards to evidence and I’ll see if I can find anything other than it’s evidence you can’t deny the validity of.

I am looking for historically valid evidence that Jesus existed. The four gospels were written at least 40 years later, and are clearly by biased writers. The synoptics vary completely with John. They don't even agree on the plan of salvation.

As GasukeiDon writes, "I think that Mark was a type of hagiography or propaganda, so it is difficult to work out which parts are historical, if any" ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7534255-13/#post56834335) If it is difficult to work out what parts of Mark are historical, how do we know that any of it is historical?

Since Mark was written late, one would do well to look at what was written before Mark to find what they say about the historical Jesus. And when we do that, we have trouble finding clear details of the historical Jesus. If the later writers were speaking propaganda, and the earlier writers ignore the historical Jesus, could it be that Jesus never existed?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Of course, anything is possible, even that Paul was 'spiritualizing' the promise to Abraham. However, there is the face reading, and the reading from analysis of the wider text. The face reading is clear: Paul calls Christ a seed of Abraham, which is consistent with Christ being a human being.

This was discussed earlier in this thread. The verse in question is:

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. (Gal. 3:16, NASB)
​

What is Paul's source that Christ is Abraham's seed? His source is Genesis, or rather, his interpretation of Genesis. Now clearly Genesis is not saying what Paul claims it is saying. Genesis says:

And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them " And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." (Gen 5:15)
​

The meaning of Genesis is clear: Abraham will have many descendents. But Paul takes the verse out of context, says it refers to one descendent, the Messiah. So at this point he has gone completely off into a spiritual interpetation of an ancient text that does not say what Paul claims.

As one chapter earlier he says that "those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham," and as Paul is clearly using Genesis in a non-literal sense, he could well simply be claiming the Jesus was part of the realm of the faith of Abraham that he is selling.

I agree, Paul was talking about his gospel. Read my review. His gospel was to "the uncircumsized". He was the apostle to the gentiles. If you have a different view, I'm happy to disagree.

Yes, his gospel was to the uncircumsized. But I am not talking about who it was to. I am talking about his gospel.

And Paul says he did not receive his gospel from men.

When Paul says "gospel", he doesn't mean a gospel like Mark. He means "the good news" about Jesus. AFAICT, the good news wasn't about his earthly life, but his death and the implications coming from that.

And Paul says he did not receive this "good news" from men.

He did it to the churches in Judea "in Christ". But agreed about the rest. Add "Paul didn't say when". And this highlights the point I gave above. Paul gives very few details about anything.

Ever try to work your way through Romans 16? How can we have a chapter full of such trivial details, and yet find little concern about God incarnate recently walking on earth for years in an open working relationship with Paul's peers?

Though Paul may have heard the teachings of others, he is emphatic that the basis of his own message is his own personal revelation, not the witness of others.

If Paul's message was obtained partly form listening to many witnesses who told him of the earthly Jesus, then it would have been inexcusable not to give those witnesses credit. How dare he say he did not get his message from man, if he was so deeply indebted to those witnesses? So unless Paul was exceedingly rude and ungrateful, it seems reasonable to assume that Paul heard nobody witness that Jesus had recently been seen on earth.

　
Okay. A polite Paul would have included witnesses to Jesus being recently seen on earth in his letters because... why is that again?

You want me to repeat it again? Sure.

Though Paul may have heard the teachings of others, he is emphatic that the basis of his own message is his own personal revelation, not the witness of others.

If Paul's message was obtained partly form listening to many witnesses who told him of the earthly Jesus, then it would have been inexcusable not to give those witnesses credit. How dare he say he did not get his message from man, if he was so deeply indebted to those witnesses? So unless Paul was exceedingly rude and ungrateful, it seems reasonable to assume that Paul heard nobody witness that Jesus had recently been seen on earth.

​

Is that enough of repeats for you?
　

That's right. Paul's gospel -- his mission to the gentiles and the message that Christ means salvation to them -- came from no man.

You seem to be confusing Paul's gospel and Paul's mission. Paul doesn't say he got his mission from no man. He says he got his gospel from no man.

We can't be sure of exactly what Q said, but it appears to have mentioned a leader of the Q community that may or may not have been named Jesus. As far as we can tell, this community taught nothing about salvation through the cross of Christ, or about the leader being divine.

Well yes. So we have a community that didn't think Jesus was divine, similar to the Ebionites. What does that tell us? Does that support Doherty's theories about the early Christians believing Jesus was divine? I don't understand how you can write the above without thinking about the implications on mythicism.

The early Q community may have been following an earthly leader, but that in no way proves that Paul was teaching about an earthly leader. Rome was a big empire, and there were many different ideas in many places. Paul speaks of a Christianity that seems to be hopelessly fractured. So Paul and his community in Asia minor could easily have been following something completely different from a Q community in northern Palestine. They might not even have known of each other.

...a good case can be made that no earthly man was the inspiration for Paul's Jesus.

No it can't. Too many references in Paul that you have to 'spiritualize' in order to explain away. A prima facie reading of Paul suggests that an earthly man was the inspiration for Paul's Jesus.

So far you have found only a sprinkling of poetic phrases that could easily have other meanings.

You have stated that, "I think that Mark was a type of hagiography or propaganda, so it is difficult to work out which parts are historical, if any" ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7534255-13/#post56834335) If Mark was propaganda, then surely Matthew, Luke and John also have that problem. So if the four gospels are, as you describe Mark, "propaganda", and it is difficult to see which parts of the four gospels are truly historical, then I would think you would want to turn to the writings before Mark to find out the core reality of the historical Christ.

But if you set aside the four gospels and Acts for a moment, you are left with a smattering of poetic and cryptic phrases that may or may not be referring to a human on earth.

Reading Paul, does it sound like he is using figurative language when discussing how Christ was crucified?

Uh, what passage of Paul discussing how Christ was crucified are you referring to?

Isn't the very lack of such details the very reason we ended up here? If you know of a place where Paul discusses how Christ was crucified using clear details of an earthly event, please tell us where, and we can be done with this discussion.

 

[SavedByGrace82]

Yes I believe that Paul saw Jesus as a historic person.

1 Cor 11:23-27

"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.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.



I believe that we here can find some interessting things - one of them - the Lords supper was spread through the oral traditions. Paul said here: "For I have reseived of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." He has gave this tradition to this people before - and then Paul writes about the Lords supper - when Jesus was betrayed and gives the disciples the holy supper!



I know that some people think it is strange that Paul didnt talked so much about Jesus as a historical person - but I dont think it is so strange. Because when Paul wrote a letter to the churches - he wrote for some reasons. The churches had some sort of problems in that moment and why should Paul then wrote about Jesus as a historical person? I believe that Paul really did believed that Jesus was a historical person, but that he talked about what Jesus did and so on - when he evangelized! Not when he wrote to people who already were christians.


I hope that you all will understand me - my english is terrible - but you can all correct me if I spell in the wrong way!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Go back to Attis for a moment.

AAAaaahhh!!! What if I don't want to go back to Attis?

Doherty claims that the "average pagan" placed the myth in the sky. But there is no evidence for this. They placed the myth of Attis along the River Gallus in Phrygia. So what is the evidence for thinking that they thought that something happening on earth occurred in heaven? What is the reason for going against the clear reading of the text?

AAAaaahhh!!! What if I don't want to go back to Attis?

Why are you even bringing this up? You seem to be saying that Doherty once made a mistake about Attis. Why do those of us here care about that? Doherty is human, like all of us. We all already knew that. Humans make mistakes. If he made a mistake why come here and tell us over and over that Doherty once made a mistake about Attis?

Do you see where I am coming from now? Remember, it is Doherty who makes the equivalence to Attis, not me. The issue isn't whether ancient pagans placed the gods in the heavens, but where they thought the myths of their gods (where the myths are not explicitly located in heaven) were thought to be played out.

AAAaaahhh!!! What if I don't want to go back to Attis?

What if I don't want to get into a prolonged discussion as to whether Doherty is human and once made a mistake?

Well, let's produce the evidence then. Start with Attis.

AAAaaahhh!!! What if I don't want to go back to Attis?

I know you don't want to, but it is a good litmus test for an actual claim made by Doherty.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for recognizing that I don't want to go back to Attis!

Why should we be providing a litmus test to argue that somebody once made a mistake? Don't all humans make mistakes?

At some point you need to start validating Doherty's claims, merle.

AAAaaahhh!!! What if I don't want to go back to Attis?

That's what it all comes down to in the end, merle: evidence. Just make your claim and present your evidence. Isn't that a good thing to do?

Since you are new here, can I explain something to you? This sub-forum is designed for people to ask Christians questions. It is not designed as a place for atheists to come and argue with Christians. I am here to ask questions. If you prefer addressing arguments for atheism, I can suggest other forums that are designed for arguments about atheism.

My claim is this: Paul's terminology supports the idea that he thought that Jesus was a man recently crucified in Paul's immediate past. There is no evidence that Paul's terminology was used to refer to people who lived above the earth in the heavens. There is plenty of evidence that Paul's terminology was used to refer to people who lived on the earth.

There, done. I can present evidence to support my claim.

That's what it comes down to.

You say Mark's writing could be propaganda, but you do find some terminology in Paul that supports the idea of an earthly Jesus. If Mark is largely fiction, some of us find it hard to believe that a few poetic terms in Paul's writing would prove that the incarnate God actually walked on earth.

Now, your turn. What is your claim, and what is your evidence?

Sorry wrong forum. This forum is designed as a place to ask questions to Christians. It is not a place for presenting arguments for atheisim.

I do mention the evidence that is necessary to ask my questions. If you are interested in more evidence, please go to http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/ .

Now can we please get back to the intention of this forum?

Thank you.

No more list of hypothetical questions, please. No more asking "Why did Paul not mention this? Why didn't early Christians mention that?"

Sir, if you don't like the purpose of this forum, then why did you come here? If you are looking to argue with atheists, why don't you just go where atheists commonly argue?

I am here to do what this forum was designed for: to ask Christians question, and to listen to their answers.

May I continue, please?

My claim: Paul is saying that Christ entered heaven. His other references to Christ indicate a man. Men live on earth. Therefore Paul believed that Christ rose physically (thus blood) into heaven.

And if the four gospels and Acts didn't exist, would you consider this convincing evidence? Or are you really relying on Mark, the book you say is largely propaganda?

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?

Merle, throwing up questions this way isn't skepticism.

It sounds like skepticism to me, but I won't quibble over what to call it.

Regardless, this forum is designed for people to come and ask questions.

So onward.

Let's see. What would be a good question to ask?

Hmmm.

Oh, I thought of a good question!

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?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Here is an atheist complaining about a Christian's use of "argument from exhaustion". From here:
1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
2) Atheist: of course.
3) How about the slightly modified proposition X’?
4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
6) Atheist: No! And I didn’t agree with X’!
7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
...

Stop! Stop! Enough said. We get the point.

Have I ever done the things mentioned here? If so, please show the post where I did this.

And if you can't point to a place where I did this, why bring it up?

I don't doubt that merle is sincere in his questions, but surely it is obvious that this type of response is a way of avoiding explicit claims and avoiding providing actual evidence.

I am not here to make explicit claims. By forum rules, as a nonbeliever, I am invited here to ask questions. Now may I please get back to my questions?

Maybe it COULD be that when Paul writes that Christ entered "heaven itself", Paul meant that Christ was in one part of heaven and then entered another part of heaven which Paul, for some weird reason, called "heaven itself". But it isn't the face reading, nor a high probability answer, so the burden is on merle if he wants to make that claim. The burden isn't on me to establish that the face reading isn't wrong.

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.

And remember also that Hebrews was on the margins for years before being widely adopted within Christianity. The original Hebrews may have been even clearer in its argument for a heavenly redemption. There was plenty of time for orthodox scribes to alter a few words to make it conform to orthodox theology before the book became widely known. You are getting a lot of mileage out of the phrase "into heaven" when your meaning becomes completely lost if the original had said "in heaven".

And you say Paul wrote Hebrews? Now that is an interesting claim!

This is fairly typical of Doherty's argumentation style as well. "Why didn't Paul talk about X?" Doherty will frequently ask. But this is not an argument. An argument is something like "Paul should have talked about X, and the evidence for why Paul should have talked about X is...".

I invite any curious lurkers to read what Doherty actually says, and see for themselves the places where he says something like, "Paul should have talked about X, and the evidence for why Paul should have talked about X is..."

Don't let them get away with asking hypothetical questions in place of arguments!

Uh, uh, uh!


Please look up at the top of the screen. Remember where you are? See where it says, "Exploring Christianity"? Did you forget?

This is the place to ask questions of Christians. This is not the place for arguing with Christians. Would you please stop insisting that we start arguing more around here? Thank you.