Stephen said
A) Tony, merely pointing out the problems with the historicist view of the origins of Christianity does NOT mean the mythicist position is valid.  You still have to marshal evidence for your position.

B) Who invented the Jesus story?  How did that work exactly? What evidence do you have that this is true?  

A) It’s not about validity, it’s about probability.  We have two competing hypotheses:

1) Historicist Ehrman: Jesus was a charismatic nobody, who was elevated post-mortem to Son of God/Messiah status by his followers.  The Jesus of Paul and the gospels are one and the same.

2) Mythicism: Paul’s Jesus was a celestial being who was sacrificed and resurrected in the heavens to atone for human sin.  Mark took this concept and placed his created Jesus of Nazareth on earth in an historical setting.

The scientific method to determine the best fit for competing hypotheses is by comparing them against the available data.  The NT is the main, but not exclusive, source of data. Note that this is a search for best fit, not absolute certainty!

B) According to Paul, the existence for the Lord Jesus came through Scripture and revelations.  You can read some of my earlier postings for some of the evidence.  Better yet, read Carrier’s,  “On the historicity of Jesus”.  A much easier read is David Fitzgerald’s “Mything in Action”.

Robert said

Tony said

Nice gotcha Robert! Of course, my first response is – show me where in Paul’s letters Jesus is crucified on earth!

Apples & oranges. I never claimed that Paul’s religion was only about narrating facts about Jesus’ past earthly life and death. It is a minor aspect of Paul’s thought only tangentially related to some of the major contemporary issues that are his primary focus when writing to his different communities. (Nonetheless, I did show you two texts that do relate to Jesus’ earthly death, but you don’t want to discuss them in any detail.) On the other hand, you made the claim that Paul’s religion is all about Jesus having been handed over by God to Satan in the lower heavens. Seems to me you should be able to point to at least one text where Paul might actually say that.

Tony said

Actually, in reading Paul’s letters in context it becomes obvious that Paul’s Jesus is crucified in the heavens. More on that later. There is a clear reference in Hebrews on the heavenly crucifixion of Jesus. Hebrews dates from Paul’s time and is an argument for the superiority of Christianity over Judaism.

“Heb 8:1-6, “Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.”

The offer by the Lord, his sacrifice and crucifixion, was heavenly and therefore superior. Notice the “If he were on earth”. Obviously, the Lord Jesus never was on earth as his sacrificial death on earth would have been inferior.
  

There is no disagreement that the early Christians, the author of Hebrews included, most certainly believed that Jesus was currently alive and well in heaven and accessible to them through prayer and visions and that they actually participated in the body of Christ through baptism, the Lord’s supper, and in their communal life and service. If you read the text you quoted above carefully, you should be able to see that there is in fact no mention whatsoever of Jesus having been handed over by God to Satan in the lower heavens. Jesus in heaven, yes. As a high priest interceding on behalf of those of us stuck on earth, yes. But no mention whatsoever of Jesus having been handed over by God to Satan in the lower heavens. 

Tony said

Paul’s letters provide the following context:

1. 1. 1. 1. Paul appears to know nothing about a Jesus who had an earthly ministry and who was crucified in Jerusalem by Pilate;
      1. 1. Paul’s Jesus was crucified, but Paul never states where or when;
      1. 1. Paul’s Jesus would be arriving shortly, but that would have been a first arrival. There are no indications of a second coming or a return. Paul’s Jesus has never been on earth;
      1. 1. Paul identifies the Lord Jesus as the Son of God. The Son of God was a heavenly being (Heb 8:1, cf. Rom 8:32)
      1. 1. Paul’s Jesus was identified only through revelations. Not just by Paul, but also by the other Apostles. 

All of these points can be debated, as I suspect you know, but we would need to look at specific texts and contexts, which up until now you seem reluctant to do. We can do so, if you change your mind, however. But before looking at specific texts, what was it you promised above? 

“Actually, in reading Paul’s letters in context it becomes obvious that Paul’s Jesus is crucified in the heavens.”

So, again, where is it so obvious that Paul’s Jesus was crucified in heaven?

Tony said

Based on this we can safely deduct that Paul’s Jesus was a celestial being and that the crucifixion took place in heaven.   

Huh? Deductive reasoning? How about looking more closely at actual texts in context. For example, where is your refutation of Gerd Lüdemann? How do you refute the reading of 1 Thessalonians 2 that I presented to you in brief?

Tony said

So, who killed Jesus?  Paul writes the “rulers of this age” in 1 Cor 2:8 – identified by many scholars as the satanic demons in the lower heavens.  

Not many scholars (two or three generalists perhaps?), and absolutely no Pauline specialists, read 1 Corinthians 2 as saying Jesus was killed in the lower heavens. You know that, right? And even you have not responded to the points that I and others have made to you about reading 1 Cor 2,6-8 in the context of 1 Corinthians, Chapters 1-3.  

Typical “can’t see the forest for the trees” argument.  Did you fail to notice that Hebrews, likely the earliest document we have from the original Torah observing Christians, says about Jesus of Nazareth, the itinerant preacher who was executed in Jerusalem…….absolutely nothing!   Your apologetic responses to real facts and sources is to deny, deflect and demand more proof!  Obviously, there cannot be an rational exchange on this basis.  

Here is Ludemann in summary of “Paul as a Witness to the Historical Jesus”,  pg 212,  “In short Paul cannot be considered  a reliable witness to either the teachings, the life, or the historical existence of Jesus”.  

And no, I do not accept your, or Ludemann’s, disputed interpretation of the 1Thess 2 interpolation. 

My membership on this blog is coming to an end and seeing that you are unable, or unwilling, to engage in a rational evidence based discussion, I’ll stop responding. It’s been fun.

Robert said

Stephen said
Tony wrote

Here is Ludemann in summary of “Paul as a Witness to the Historical Jesus”,  pg 212,  “In short Paul cannot be considered  a reliable witness to either the teachings, the life, or the historical existence of Jesus”.  

Here to quote is to misquote.  I will assume you simply didn’t know rather than you’re being dishonest.  What Ludemann wrote was

Paul thought that a person named Jesus had lived and that he now sat at the right hand of God in heaven. Yet he shows only a passing acquaintance with traditions related to life and nowhere an independent acquaintance with them. In short, Paul cannot be considered a reliable witness to either the teachings, the life, or the historical existence of Jesus.

Earlier in the essay Ludemann wrote –  In short, while Paul is far from a systematic biographer, it is incorrect to say that the earthly Jesus did not matter to him. (p. 200)

How so the apparent contradiction?  In the context of the entire essay what Ludemann is saying is that because of Paul’s agenda and point of view we cannot get reliable details about the life of the historical Jesus.  Ludemann is not denying the brute fact of his existence.  

Yeah, I was going to point this out as well. In Lüdemann’s view Paul certainly thought that Jesus had existed as an historical earthly person, and in writing Gal 4,4 he meant it in the normal sense of being born and considered James to be Jesus’ biological and earthly brother in the normal sense (Gal 1,19). As I mentioned above, in the historico-critical method, these texts are primarily evidence for the views if an author, secondarily for the views of the author’s audience and their understanding of the views of others, perhaps opponents, and only in a minimal tertiary sense can one possibly use some texts as a witness to earlier traditions. Thus no contradiction in Lüdemann.  

Jeez, I have to get out of retirement for a day to protect my good name from the historical Jesus apologists.  Perhaps you do not realize that the motivation, strategies and methods you’re using are the same as Christian fundamentalist.  I’m sure you’ll deny it, because it’s difficult to see it from the inside. Stephen’s language “the brute fact of his existence” is a good example of absolute fundamentalist thinking.

On Ludemann; his statement speaks for itself and it is in context.  Ludemann is not a Mythicists.  Like Ehrman he believes in some human Jesus and is a participant in the centuries long search for the “historical Jesus”.  Ludemann observes correctly that Paul adds nothing to the historical existence argument, but of course he fails to mention that Paul adds a great deal to the mythicist argument.

I see you use the two Galatians verses which historists like to use as evidence for human Jesus.  Here is a copy of a blog comment I’ve made earlier:

“Galatians 4:4, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law”.

The Greek word that Paul uses (genomai) does not mean biological birth. Genomai means “becoming” or “made”. Paul uses that word a lot, for example, when he writes about Adam being made as in 1 Cor 15:45, or when he describes our future resurrected bodies made by God in 1 Cor 15:37. When Paul writes about a biological birth he uses the Greek word gennao as in Rom 9:11 and Gal 4:23,29 (but not in 4.4!).

Besides the strangely redundant, generic and unnamed “woman” Paul never indicates he knows anything about a family, birth location, parents names etc.

So, who is this generic woman? Paul clarifies that in Gal 4:21-31. The women are allegorical and not literal! “Under the law” refers to Hagar and Jerusalem. Sarah refers the Jerusalem above and she is our mother. Jesus was made under the law and slavery, but through his obedient sacrifice bought freedom and the promise for all.”

The other straw for historists to grasp, is the “brother of the Lord” argument. Please see my comment #54 above for clarity on that one. 

vergari said

I would like to reiterate the two questions I posed before, soliciting the Mythicist view for an explanation:

First, if Jesus of Nazareth was a Markan invention (presumably circa 70 CE or later), how does on reconcile the Neronian persecution in 64/65 CE?  Presupposing the Mythicist argument is that these pre-Markan Christian held to a strictly celestial view of Jesus Christ, how is it that two generations later we are hearing from Tacitus that Christ was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate?  Are we to believe that this very same Christian community in Rome went from believing Jesus Christ was strictly a celestial being to believing that he was an earthly being crucified under Pontius Pilate within two generations?  And, under what circumstances was Tacitus, who studied in Rome as a young man, so duped into believing this transformation from Christ as a celestial demi-god to Christ as a itinerant preacher from Judea?

Secondly, if Jesus Christ was strictly a celestial being in Paul’s mind, and Paul claimed to have experienced visions of this purely celestial being, why would it be at all relevant to Paul to travel to Jerusalem to meet with other apostles of this same celestial being for the purpose of somehow confirming that the message he was preaching was the correct one?  Why would these other people, whom he barely knew, have some sort of better insight into what a purely celestial being wanted preached, if Paul had his own unique line of communication with this celestial being?  And why would Paul feel the need to keep advising his followers in Galatia that he had these meetings and that his message had been confirmed?  Said another way, if Jesus never existed on earth and was never a preacher in Jerusalem, why would Paul and/or his followers in Galatia care what these people in Jerusalem thought?  

You’re persistent.  I’ll give you the information which I’m sure you’ll reject, because your preconceived opinions are loud and clear.

Tacitus dates from 116, at which time some gospels had been in circulation for about a couple of decades. The Tacitus passage describes that Nero scapegoated Christians for burning Rome in 64. Other Roman historians had reported on the fire, but none have linked it to Christians. In fact, the first recorded mention of the Tacitus passage comes from the fourth century. Second century Christians told of persecutions by Nero, but never mention the Roman fire!  The passage in question refers to Chrestians and that was no misspelling.  Suetonius reports on an uprising by followers of a a Jewish instigator named  Chrestus,  first suppressed under Claudius. The line in question, “Christ the author of this name, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign if Tiberius”, is likely a fourth century interpolation inserted into a Tacitus report about Chrestians.  Of course, “Christ” is an exalted Christian title. A Roman historian would have referred to this criminal as Jesus – something.

Another context point is that Pliny the Younger, Tacitus friend, fellow historian and Governor of an adjacent Province. He reported earlier on finding Christians.  Pliny had never heard about Christians and had no idea who, or what, they were. Pliny writes that they worshiped a certain Christ, who was something like a God (quasi deo).  No mention of Jesus of Nazareth, or anything about a Christian role in the Roman fire from Pliny.

I don’t understand how your question relates to a celestial Jesus. Christianity started as a Jewish sect of Torah following Jews, lead from Jerusalem, that had spread to the Jewish diaspora outside Palestine.  Paul, the Pharisee, persecuted some of these diaspora Jesus churches, until he too had a Jesus vision. Paul decided that gentile Jesus followers need not become Jews.  In other words – Paul was a heretic. That was the reason for his travels to Jerusalem. He wanted agreement that his leadership would be limited to gentile members only, but that these gentiles needed not be circumcised. Lots of Jewish Jesus believers were not in agreement with this, and kept raiding Paul’s gentile churches. That’s why Paul is furious about the Jewish raiders and those gentile church members who were considering their advice.