Mythical Christ Gains Favour

[d.thomas]

.


Personally, I always assumed an historical Jesus behind the story, but having read a few books from the mythicist viewpoint as well as the historical, it seems that from a Jewish/Hellenist cultural and historical view of the early centuries, a mythical Christ falls into place in that it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed, at least not as a man that walked the earth. The earliest Christian writings which include the Epistles describe a spiritual Christ that resided in the spiritual realm, that sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary and was known to apostles through revelation, visions.

Philo laid down the theological groundwork for Christianity without mentioning a Christ or writing of a Jesus even though he was in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion. He did write of Pontius Pilate, although his portrayal of a ruthless Pilate is in stark contrast to that of the concerned and caring Pilate portrayed in the Gospels. His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.


There are books and websites that cover a great deal of the aspects involved. The following I recommend in terms of this discussion:


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm



http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/


.

[achilles12604]

Just because I have a little time on my hands...

This thread is entitled "Mythical Christ Gains Favour" and since there is no topic question, I'll assume that the question is whether or not that statement is true.

I personally think that it might, in fact, be correct. I confess that I have no evidence for this besides the fact that in my personal experience I have been noticing it a lot more lately. Of course, that could be because I've been looking a lot more lately. If it is true, I don't think that it's a very good thing at all.

One would expect that someone opening a thread with this premise might like to provide some evidence to back their claim, but so far only the author of the OP and Albert Schweitzer have been cited as favoring a "Mythical Christ". Hardly a revolution. Of this sample, 50% can be shown NOT to have favored a "Mythical Christ", as Schweitzer regarded Jesus as an historical figure, he just thought that the scholarship of the 18th and 19th centuries did a poor job of defining him...

""When we have once made up our minds that we have not the materials for a complete Life of Jesus, but only for a picture of His public ministry, it must be admitted that there are few characters of antiquity about whom we possess so much indubitably historical information, of whom we have so many authentic discourses." - Albert Schweitzer

But hey, what does he know? That was like, 100 years ago. Before Nag Hammadi, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Gospel of Thomas came to light. Not even any C14 dating or PCs. I find it interesting that the author of the OP cites Schweitzer, since Creationists also like to cite 19th century scientists, and I have noticed other parallels between creationism and Christ-mythism. Both are pseudoscientific, both cherrypick evidence, and IMO both twist facts to suit an ideological agenda. That's why "Mythical Christ Gains Favour" makes me about as happy as "YEC in the Classroom Gains Favor".

Since d.thomas hasn't provided any evidence that the "Mythical Christ" really is gaining favor, but he does provide what he imagines to be evidence for the Christ-myth 'theory' itself, we might, in the absence of a debate question, imagine that he's arguing for the validity of that premise based on the logical fallacy of Argument from Popularity (at least it's popular with him) as well as the logical fallacy of Argument from Predestination...

It's probably just a matter of time for this view to become mainstream.

...and...

I'm the only one so far, but just wait, there'll be others.

He's a living, breathing prophet!

Having "read a few books" he can confidently tell us that...

...it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed.

...and...

The conclusions are different than what most people's baseless assumtions are about an historical Jesus.

That's probably true, even if it is also unevidenced. Of course "most people" aren't conversant with all the relevant data and arguments, and if we're going to accept Argument from Popularity as evidence, then that would suggest that "most people's baseless assumtions...about an historical Jesus" must be valid because they have already 'gained favor'.
But what about the experts? Scholars who favor the Christ-myth are a tiny minority, so what about all the others who hold to the opinion that Jesus was an historical figure? Do they also make "baseless assumtions"? I doubt that d.thomas is suggesting that, and really that would be foolish when, these same scholars state that it is on the basis of evidence that they have reached their conclusions regarding Jesus' historicity.

In spite of d.thomas claim to be the "only one so far" he does have a few scholars in his corner...

There are books and websites that cover a great deal of the aspects involved.
The following I recommend in terms of this discussion:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

To his credit, at least d.thomas didn't post the link to jesusneverexisted.com! Both Bob Price, and Earl Doherty are reputable scholars, even if I disagree with their conclusions. From the "Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ" site...

"The secular historical view basically starts with the Gospels and then removes the fantastic or "supernatural" claims in the Gospels and accepts what is left as history."
"Secular historians who believe that Jesus existed rely on the Gospels as essentially historical, but inflated, accounts of his life."

Neither of these statements is really true and Dr. Price should know that. They are grossly oversimplified mischaracterizations (remember what I said about creationists?) designed to build up to the big strawman argument...

"But are the Gospels reliable historical accounts?"

What a load!
Earl Doherty plays the 'bias' card, too...

"But in the new search for the historical Jesus, the most important issue of all is being largely ignored. Has Western society been the victim of the greatest misconception in history?"

No one is ignoring anything Earl, and they have said as much. This statement is a lie. It is a propaganda technique from page 1 of the pseudoscientist's handbook...

Q. "But Doctor, how is it that the scientific establishment hasn't embraced your theory that the Great Pyramid is actually a solar battery for UFOs?"
A. Those academics in their ivory towers have too much invested in the current paradigm to admit that they are mistaken."

...creationists do the same thing, too.

Finally, to be fair let's examine the evidence for the Christ-myth theory that's been presented on this thread...

earliest Christian writings which include the Epistles describe a spiritual Christ that resided in the spiritual realm, that sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary and was known to apostles through revelation, visions.

Paul tells us that Jesus was...a man, born of woman, a Jew, who lived, and who had a brother named James, and ministered to the jews, was crucified and died and was buried. What more do you need? All the heavenly stuff is post-'resurrection'.

Philo laid down the theological groundwork for Christianity without mentioning a Christ or writing of a Jesus even though he was in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion.

Some of Philo's ideas are similar to those in gJohn and possibly Hebrews. To say that they "laid down the theological groundwork" for Christianity is a bit much. Any educated diaspora Jew would have known the basics of Hellenic philosophy, but Paul's Jesus isn't exactly the logos.

He did write of Pontius Pilate, although his portrayal of a ruthless Pilate is in stark contrast to that of the concerned and caring Pilate portrayed in the Gospels.

Josephus paints a clear enough picture of Pilate's cruelty; it's not exactly news to historians. The gospels were written for an Hellenic audience. It wouldn't have served to make Pilate the bad guy. This is part of a well understood pro-hellenic/anti-judahist theme that runs through the four gospels.

His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

The gospel Jesus ate fish after his 'resurrection' and let people poke their fingers through his hands.

The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.

Or he may have taken traditions from Jerusalem and Galilee that did have a connection. Evidence please.

This isn't about the lack of evidence for an historical Jesus, it's about what early Christian writings do say about a spiritual Christ at the beginning of Christianity and how the Gospels were put together.

Paul says he was a man. Mark says he was a man.

The only story we have of a Jesus of Nazareth is the Gospels and they are dependent on Mark.

Actually we have quite a few non-canonical stories about Jesus as well. These might be late, but they might also contain at least the vestige of authentic traditions as. It's a circular argument to claim that they could not. Also the degree of dependence of gJohn on gMark is debatable, and gJohn may also include authentic traditions. And of course, we have Paul's limited but important testimony that Jesus was a man who lived and died and was buried.

The Gospels cannot be corroborated so we can't rely on them as historical, instead they are referred to as faith documents.

But they are historical. They may not be factual history, but they are historical documents nonetheless. Where they do not tell us what Jesus did and said, they can still tell us what his philosophical descendents thought about him; what they thought that he would do or say.

It conficts the least with the historical record as well as the Jewish/ Hellenist culture of the time.

Not at all. Itinerant holymen calling the people to repent were all the rage in 1st century Palestine, and 'biographies' of one's favorite hero, filled with wondrous deeds and invented situations and dialogue were popular as well. Historians know the "historical record" and the "Jewish/Hellenist culture of the time" as well as anyone, and nothing about the historical Jesus is all that remarkable in that light. The invention of a new God in the shadow of the Jerusalem temple would have been a conflict, to say the least.

Gee Lotan, now I almost feel obligated to offer the non-theist point of view just to make things even again.

[Furrowed Brow]

Just because I have a little time on my hands...

This thread is entitled "Mythical Christ Gains Favour" and since there is no topic question, I'll assume that the question is whether or not that statement is true.

I personally think that it might, in fact, be correct. I confess that I have no evidence for this besides the fact that in my personal experience I have been noticing it a lot more lately. Of course, that could be because I've been looking a lot more lately. If it is true, I don't think that it's a very good thing at all.

One would expect that someone opening a thread with this premise might like to provide some evidence to back their claim, but so far only the author of the OP and Albert Schweitzer have been cited as favoring a "Mythical Christ". Hardly a revolution. Of this sample, 50% can be shown NOT to have favored a "Mythical Christ", as Schweitzer regarded Jesus as an historical figure, he just thought that the scholarship of the 18th and 19th centuries did a poor job of defining him...

""When we have once made up our minds that we have not the materials for a complete Life of Jesus, but only for a picture of His public ministry, it must be admitted that there are few characters of antiquity about whom we possess so much indubitably historical information, of whom we have so many authentic discourses." - Albert Schweitzer

But hey, what does he know? That was like, 100 years ago. Before Nag Hammadi, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Gospel of Thomas came to light. Not even any C14 dating or PCs. I find it interesting that the author of the OP cites Schweitzer, since Creationists also like to cite 19th century scientists, and I have noticed other parallels between creationism and Christ-mythism. Both are pseudoscientific, both cherrypick evidence, and IMO both twist facts to suit an ideological agenda. That's why "Mythical Christ Gains Favour" makes me about as happy as "YEC in the Classroom Gains Favor".

Since d.thomas hasn't provided any evidence that the "Mythical Christ" really is gaining favor, but he does provide what he imagines to be evidence for the Christ-myth 'theory' itself, we might, in the absence of a debate question, imagine that he's arguing for the validity of that premise based on the logical fallacy of Argument from Popularity (at least it's popular with him) as well as the logical fallacy of Argument from Predestination...

It's probably just a matter of time for this view to become mainstream.

...and...

I'm the only one so far, but just wait, there'll be others.

He's a living, breathing prophet!

Having "read a few books" he can confidently tell us that...

...it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed.

...and...

The conclusions are different than what most people's baseless assumtions are about an historical Jesus.

That's probably true, even if it is also unevidenced. Of course "most people" aren't conversant with all the relevant data and arguments, and if we're going to accept Argument from Popularity as evidence, then that would suggest that "most people's baseless assumtions...about an historical Jesus" must be valid because they have already 'gained favor'.
But what about the experts? Scholars who favor the Christ-myth are a tiny minority, so what about all the others who hold to the opinion that Jesus was an historical figure? Do they also make "baseless assumtions"? I doubt that d.thomas is suggesting that, and really that would be foolish when, these same scholars state that it is on the basis of evidence that they have reached their conclusions regarding Jesus' historicity.

In spite of d.thomas claim to be the "only one so far" he does have a few scholars in his corner...

There are books and websites that cover a great deal of the aspects involved.
The following I recommend in terms of this discussion:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

To his credit, at least d.thomas didn't post the link to jesusneverexisted.com! Both Bob Price, and Earl Doherty are reputable scholars, even if I disagree with their conclusions. From the "Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ" site...

"The secular historical view basically starts with the Gospels and then removes the fantastic or "supernatural" claims in the Gospels and accepts what is left as history."
"Secular historians who believe that Jesus existed rely on the Gospels as essentially historical, but inflated, accounts of his life."

Neither of these statements is really true and Dr. Price should know that. They are grossly oversimplified mischaracterizations (remember what I said about creationists?) designed to build up to the big strawman argument...

"But are the Gospels reliable historical accounts?"

What a load!
Earl Doherty plays the 'bias' card, too...

"But in the new search for the historical Jesus, the most important issue of all is being largely ignored. Has Western society been the victim of the greatest misconception in history?"

No one is ignoring anything Earl, and they have said as much. This statement is a lie. It is a propaganda technique from page 1 of the pseudoscientist's handbook...

Q. "But Doctor, how is it that the scientific establishment hasn't embraced your theory that the Great Pyramid is actually a solar battery for UFOs?"
A. Those academics in their ivory towers have too much invested in the current paradigm to admit that they are mistaken."

...creationists do the same thing, too.

Finally, to be fair let's examine the evidence for the Christ-myth theory that's been presented on this thread...

earliest Christian writings which include the Epistles describe a spiritual Christ that resided in the spiritual realm, that sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary and was known to apostles through revelation, visions.

Paul tells us that Jesus was...a man, born of woman, a Jew, who lived, and who had a brother named James, and ministered to the jews, was crucified and died and was buried. What more do you need? All the heavenly stuff is post-'resurrection'.

Philo laid down the theological groundwork for Christianity without mentioning a Christ or writing of a Jesus even though he was in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion.

Some of Philo's ideas are similar to those in gJohn and possibly Hebrews. To say that they "laid down the theological groundwork" for Christianity is a bit much. Any educated diaspora Jew would have known the basics of Hellenic philosophy, but Paul's Jesus isn't exactly the logos.

He did write of Pontius Pilate, although his portrayal of a ruthless Pilate is in stark contrast to that of the concerned and caring Pilate portrayed in the Gospels.

Josephus paints a clear enough picture of Pilate's cruelty; it's not exactly news to historians. The gospels were written for an Hellenic audience. It wouldn't have served to make Pilate the bad guy. This is part of a well understood pro-hellenic/anti-judahist theme that runs through the four gospels.

His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

The gospel Jesus ate fish after his 'resurrection' and let people poke their fingers through his hands.

The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.

Or he may have taken traditions from Jerusalem and Galilee that did have a connection. Evidence please.

This isn't about the lack of evidence for an historical Jesus, it's about what early Christian writings do say about a spiritual Christ at the beginning of Christianity and how the Gospels were put together.

Paul says he was a man. Mark says he was a man.

The only story we have of a Jesus of Nazareth is the Gospels and they are dependent on Mark.

Actually we have quite a few non-canonical stories about Jesus as well. These might be late, but they might also contain at least the vestige of authentic traditions as. It's a circular argument to claim that they could not. Also the degree of dependence of gJohn on gMark is debatable, and gJohn may also include authentic traditions. And of course, we have Paul's limited but important testimony that Jesus was a man who lived and died and was buried.

The Gospels cannot be corroborated so we can't rely on them as historical, instead they are referred to as faith documents.

But they are historical. They may not be factual history, but they are historical documents nonetheless. Where they do not tell us what Jesus did and said, they can still tell us what his philosophical descendents thought about him; what they thought that he would do or say.

It conficts the least with the historical record as well as the Jewish/ Hellenist culture of the time.

Not at all. Itinerant holymen calling the people to repent were all the rage in 1st century Palestine, and 'biographies' of one's favorite hero, filled with wondrous deeds and invented situations and dialogue were popular as well. Historians know the "historical record" and the "Jewish/Hellenist culture of the time" as well as anyone, and nothing about the historical Jesus is all that remarkable in that light. The invention of a new God in the shadow of the Jerusalem temple would have been a conflict, to say the least.

Gee Lotan, now I almost feel obligated to offer the non-theist point of view just to make things even again.

If you must keep it brief this time Achilles.

[Lotan]

It's not like there is any one thing to point to and say this is the evidence for a mythical Christ, rather it's an accumulation of the details that add up and how they fit in with what we do know of the historical and cultural backdrop.

That's fine. If a mythicist explanation better accounts for the evidence then so be it.

You also note that you "don't think that it's a very good thing at all." Personally, I don't think of it in terms of good or bad or anything in between.

I don't think that it is a good thing because the interest in the Christ myth that I have seen recently has been almost exclusively among amateur internet atheists (much like myself ). The interest of itself isn't a bad thing, it is the conviction with which these amateurs declare the whole matter settled; "Jesus never existed because there's no evidence he did, because he never existed. Look at how smart we are compared to those stupid Christians. Hey did you know that Mithras was born on Dec. 25?". I see the Christ myth shaping up as a kind of new atheist creed, no longer a question of science, but of ideology. That is what I consider to be a bad thing, not the Christ myth itself. I don't even think that the Christ myth is entirely wrong. Obviously a lot of pious invention went into the creation of the NT. 'Jesus Christ' is a myth, we needn't argue about that but Yeshua of Nazareth was (until proven otherwise) an historical person.
This is why I was less than impressed with your suggestion that the Christ myth was gaining favor. It's popularity has no bearing on its truthfulness.

History is what it is and whatever happened 2,000 years ago happened and nothing is going to change that. My interest is history for history sake, it doesn't effect me either way, though I realise some are very passionate about this topic and how the history is shaped to suit some firmly held beliefs.

And that works both ways. At least it's nice to see that you approach the problem of Jesus' existence objectively. I try to do that too, so if you can convince me that the Christ myth is the superior explanation I'll happily concede the point. I am also concerned that there are some who would shape history to suit their beliefs.

Having always assumed an historical Jesus myself, I read a few books on the subject, (Crossan, Mack, Friedman, Armstrong, to name some of the mainstream) in order to separate the historical Jesus from the legendary. I stumbled across an article in a magazine written by Doherty. I debated on another board opposing his mythicist view even after reading his book which in turn forced me to read more and eventually I came to understand his position for what it is.

Warts and all? Doherty, I mean. I've read the Jesus Puzzle. I thought he did a fair job of dissecting Paul's theology, but he glossed over a lot too. As a group, I find the major proponents of the Christ myth less than stellar.

Wells and Price have also come to much the same conclusions.

Wells comes with a bit of a caveat...

"In his latest works, Wells has somewhat moderated his views, allowing for the possibility that certain elements of the Gospel traditions might be based on a historical figure from the first-century Palestine. However, Wells insists that this line of first-century traditions is separate from the sacrificial Christ myth of Paul's epistles and other early documents, and that these two traditions have different origins. Wells concludes that the reconstruction of this historical figure from the extant literature would be a hopeless task." – from Wikipedia

..and that, I think, points to the heart of the history/myth debate. We know that the "sacrificial Christ myth of Paul's epistles and other early documents" was applied to Jesus and tailored to fit him, so why does the pre-existence of similar ideas render him ahistoric?

I just recently came across the website that I provided a link to by R G Price. I have no idea who he is, the Price I had previously noted was R M Price. Anyways, R G Price's view is pretty much in line with the others and his website is rather extensive and so is Doherty's.

Oops! I missed that. I was a little surprised that Dr. Price would make that kind of statement and now I know why. He does make a comments about historical scholars that I find questionable…

"Thus I find myself more and more attracted to the theory, once vigorously debated by scholars, now smothered by tacit consent, that there was no historical Jesus lying behind the stained glass of the gospel mythology."

Is the question really “smothered” (Doherty says "largely ignored") or has it been answered to the satisfaction of nearly all NT scholarship? And this…

"All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus." – both quotes from here.

Dr. Price is entitled to his opinion, but this is a circular argument.

Now, let's do away with building a straw man, such as making reference to silly nonsense that's easy to tear down. It doesn't do anything to address what you are trying to oppose.

Yes it does. As I've said, the Christ myth is being foisted on people in much the same way as creationism and other pseudoscience has been. One tried and true method is to portray the academic establishment as dogmatic, and to belittle their methodology by presenting a strawman caricature of it. All I’ve done is to provide examples of Christ myth proponents doing the very same thing. It isn’t the Christ myth itself that I am “trying to oppose”, it is the attempt to ‘sell’ it to a popular audience on the basis of mischaracterization, the selective use of evidence (among other things).

Admittedly I don't have formal training on the subject but I do read everything I can get my hands on and I do make attempts to asses the information I receive in a critical manner.

Me too. I’ll accept that you’re an honest skeptic.

Philo first wrote of a spiritual son of God before the supposed ministry of a Jesus took place. The first Gospel was not written until about the year 70. We will get to them soon enough.

You have to look pretty hard to find Philo in gMark, and the "son of God" portrayed there is hardly "spiritual". Besides "son of God" was a pretty common idea.
The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century. from here.

There are no known connections, or no evidence of such other than the first bringing together of different traditions by the author of Mark.

I disagree. See below...

The sayings and teachings of Jesus that are common to Matthew and Luke are considered to have come from a common source referred to by scholars as Q. These teachings and sayings make no reference to a crucifixion or resurrection nor to a Christ.

This is a red herring. Why would Jesus' teachings include references to events or ideas that either hadn't happened or weren't created during his lifetime?

The Gospel of Thomas, also a sayings and teachings Gospel with no narrative or storyline, is thought to be an offshoot of an early Q tradition and it too says nothing of a crucifixion, resurrection, nor mentions a Christ.

Yes, it's a separate tradition. The Thomas' view was that Jesus was a human being and a teacher.

The best evidence of a tradition coming from a preacher type community or communities in Galilee or Syria is the Q Gospel and the Gospel of Thomas.

Right.

The Gospel of Mark can be viewed as two halves of a story joined together. The first begins with Jesus' baptism and tells of an itinerant preacher type ministry central to Galilee. The second half begins with a Jesus entry into Jerusalem and tells of his arrest, trial and crucifixion, referred to as the Passion Narrative. Some Gospels contain only the Passion Narrative such as Peter, or parts thereof.

The Passion Narrative is an apologetic fiction, the product of exegesis and imagination. Crossan has sourced almost every line to Hebrew scripture.

It is the author of Mark that first makes the connection of these two different traditions...

One might think so if they were willing to ignore the importance of the 'Kingdom of God' both to the Q community and to Paul. You could hardly ask for a more critical connection than that. There are other hints as well, like his reference to "the twelve" in 1Cor. 15, or this...

His disciples said to him : 'Is circumcision useful or not ?'
He said to them : 'If it were useful, their Father would
beget them already circumcised from their mother.
Rather, the true circumcision in spirit is in all ways useful.' - Gospel of Thomas, 53

Or compare...

Do you not know that those who perform the temple services eat (what) belongs to the temple, and those who minister at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?
In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. - 1Cor. 9:13-14

...with...

And stay in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the worker deserves his wages. - Q37

Also, even if Paul's epistles lack direct references to Q, his actions are generally in accord with its principles.

One note about reading the Epistles that is very important. The Epistles were written before the Gospels even though they are placed after the Gospels in the NT. If read first, nowhere can one get any details of an earthly Jesus.

I realize that this point is vital to the Christ myth theory, and frankly I just don't get it. Any apologist can list the relevant passages where Paul refers to Jesus as a real live (actually dead) human being. For example...

"• Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galations 4:4)
• Jesus was referred to as "Son of God". (1 Cor. 1:9)
• Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
• Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galations 4:6)
• Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
• Jesus taught that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (1 Cor. 9:14)
• Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
• Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)
• Jesus had a brother named James. (Galations 1:19)
• Jesus initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus' death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Cor. 5:7)
• The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Cor. 2:8)
• Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)
• Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
• Jesus died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
• Jesus was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)"

- from here.

It's not my intention to support an apologetic view, but how is it that Christ mythers can claim that Paul thought of Jesus solely as a 'spiritual' being? Is it because he is unfamiliar with later literary inventions like the virgin birth or the trial before the Sanhedrin?

Paul never refers to Jesus as a teacher nor as a miracle worker, he is only concerned with a crucified and risen Christ revealed through revelations, visions. He writes of his religious experience, his visions:

The 'miracle worker' argument is another red herring. Jesus' miracles may not have been invented yet, or Paul might not have been familiar with them, or more likely he may have been familiar with them but didn't believe them because he didn't hear them from James & co. I think it might be argued that Paul thought of Jesus as a teacher. He claims to have 'received' knowledge from him. In some cases that is by revelation, but that isn't always evident. Nor is it that strange that Paul is more preoccupied with the 'risen' Christ than with the dead Jesus. He thinks he's going to meet God after all. He thinks that his efforts will hasten the parousia. Paul is almost always looking forward. If your intention, in citing 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 was to show that Jesus 'appeared' to Paul as a vision, then I have no argument. If it was to claim that Paul "received" that formula from Jesus in a vision, or that these visions were Paul's sole source of information about Jesus, then I would have to question your interpretation.

Pauls Epistles are thought to have been written in the 50's, this is most likely where the author of Mark borrowed from when writing his Gospel in the 70's.

Most likely? Why? Isn't the argument that there is so little similarity between Paul's Jesus and Mark's? Which way will you have it? Burton Mack lists the Marcan sources that we can be sure of as...

"...the sayings source Q, some parables of Jesus, many of the pronouncement stories, two sets of miracle stories, some form of the Christ myth (1Cor. 15:3-5), the Christian meal text (1Cor. 11:23-26), and a number of Hebrew scriptures." - Who Wrote the New Testament?, pg. 154

So, unless you're going to argue that the Christ myth or the Last Supper (both of which Paul claims to have received) are original to Paul, it's not "most likely" that Mark got them from that source at all.

The Gospels tell stories, they are narratives and read nothing like an historical document...

Yes, we know. Even if they were utterly fantastic (they're pretty close!) they're still historical documents; they tell us something about the people who wrote them. The Pyramid texts are historical documents too, but nobody takes them at face value either.

...and all dependent on Mark...

All? From ECW...

"The terminus a quo might also be set by dependence upon the Gospel of Mark, if it were certain that the Gospel of John is dependent upon Mark. The matter is debated in contemporary scholarship, but Kysar says that the theory of Johannine independence commands a "slim majority" of contemporary critics."

John may or may not have depended on Mark, and he most definitely had independent sources...

"It is now widely agreed that the Gospel of John draws upon a tradition of Miracles of Jesus which are substantially independent of the three synoptic gospels. Wikipedia

Nor was gJohn the only gospel that differed appreciably from gMark...

"The mysterious Egerton Gospel appears to represent a parallel but independent tradition to the Gospel of John." - from Wikipedia

Didn't I say something earlier about oversimplification?

...making "corrections" to Mark here and there to suit their own agendas. Matthew and Luke copied Mark word for word except where these corrections were deemed necessary and added their own birth stories to Mark as well as their own post resurrections. John starts where Mark begins, at Jesus' baptism, and carries through the Passion Narrative following much the same order but has Jesus orchestrating the future events like a sorcerer/god man that he is. The Gospels are also composed by way of a midrashic process, a method of taking lines from scripture and re-arranging them to retell a new truth set in contemporary times. Every single line from the Passion Narrative can be shown to come from scripture, or what Christians refer to as the Old Testament.

Read Tacitus, Josephus or Pliny the Elder to get an idea of how historians documented back in the day and notice the sharp contrast to how their history reads compared to how the Gospels read.

For one thing, those historians include some pretty questionable stuff in their 'histories' too, and for another, no one is claiming (at least not me) that the gospels are histories. They are similar to a kind of biography called an aretalogy.

No, the Gospels are not only not historical, but to take a rather common for its day, fanciful story about a god man miracle worker and claim that there is an historical figure and real story at its base is to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.

There are numerous examples in Hellenism of "fanciful"stories being applied to historical figures (ie. Alexander or Pythagoras), so Jesus would be just one more of a type.

Why should this story be different than all the others, especially the number of stories of other miracle workers from generally the same time and area that read very much the same, following the same plot and general outline.

And who exactly fits that outline? Vague resemblences are a poor basis on which to make claims.

[Lotan]

Gee Lotan, now I almost feel obligated to offer the non-theist point of view just to make things even again.

Please don't do me any favors!

[Easyrider]

Q is a hypothetical document. There's simply no archaeological or historical evidence for it.

Ten Reasons to Question Q:

http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm

Fallacies at the Heart of Q:

http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/fallacy.htm

Yes, Q is a hypothetical document in that there is no surviving independent copy of it, however it's easy to infer that it existed, the workings of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding.

How so? The early Gospel writers arguably knew of each other (and Mark via Peter) so what precudes them from sharing common accounts in say, 32-33 AD right after the resurrection?

It's not a stretch to consider that the author of Mark drew from Paul's writings as well as from other sources. If there's any contention it's that Paul learned from those that Mark wrote of, but to put things in their proper order, Paul wrote first, and that Mark used Paul as a source does not conflict with the time line at hand.

That's a hypothesis. You can hypothesize almost anything but what I'm looking for is evidence backing this hypothesis up. So far I haven't seen any linkage.

It's also clear that later Gospel writers relied heavily on Mark and on Q and not much else.

That's not clear at all. In fact there's no credible historical or archaelogical evidence that I am aware of that supports that.

I think what we're seeing is an array of hypotheses, without credible back up evidence, that makes up the backbone of liberal / rationalistic "scholarship." If there's some credible evidence, vs. just a reiteration of the hypotheses, that you think justifies these arguments, then I'd like to see it please. Until then I can't give them any credence.

[juliod]

The early Gospel writers arguably knew of each other (and Mark via Peter) so what precudes them from sharing common accounts in say, 32-33 AD right after the resurrection?

Lotan will be very happy if you culd show some evidence that this is true, and not later tradition.

It's also clear that later Gospel writers relied heavily on Mark and on Q and not much else.

That's not clear at all. In fact there's no credible historical or archaelogical evidence that I am aware of that supports that.

No credible evidence? How about the opinion of every actual scholar who has studied the NT? I'm not aware of any scholar, as opposed to apologist, who does not hold that Matthew and Luke are derived principally from Mark and Q. It's this very analysis that lead to the universal (except apologists) acceptance of the existance of Q.

DanZ

[Easyrider]

The early Gospel writers arguably knew of each other (and Mark via Peter) so what precudes them from sharing common accounts in say, 32-33 AD right after the resurrection?

Lotan will be very happy if you culd show some evidence that this is true, and not later tradition.

I'm still waiting on some credible evidence that Q ever existed and is more than a rambling hypothesis.

It's also clear that later Gospel writers relied heavily on Mark and on Q and not much else.

Easyrider: That's not clear at all. In fact there's no credible historical or archaelogical evidence that I am aware of that supports that.

No credible evidence?

None. Nada. Nilch. Not one shred of archaeological or historical evidence.

How about the opinion of every actual scholar who has studied the NT?

A gross, inaccurate overgeneralization. And I'm looking for evidence, not just opinions. Where's the evidence for Q outside of conjecture? Why should we believe that vs. what numerous early church fathers quoted about apostolic Gospel authorship?

The fact is, no one had ever heard of Q before recent history. No one has ever seen even a fragment of Q. In addition, Q takes on a life of its own. It can be whatever the skeptic says it is. There's no limitations on how long it is, who possibly wrote it, when it was written, or anything like that, because nobody really knows squat about it. It's an irrefutable hypothesis, which is a clear warning flag of pseudoscience. But you guys do love your unfounded hypotheses, I'll give you that much.

[Lotan]

Lotan will be very happy if you culd show some evidence that this is true, and not later tradition.

Don't you do me any favors either!

[d.thomas]

I've read the Jesus Puzzle. I thought he did a fair job of dissecting Paul's theology, but he glossed over a lot too. As a group, I find the major proponents of the Christ myth less than stellar.

I'm disappointed, after all the insults re: creationists, pseudoscience, atheist creed, ideology and on and on slung at the mythicist view, we come to this:

I realize that this point is vital to the Christ myth theory, and frankly I just don't get it. Any apologist can list the relevant passages where Paul refers to Jesus as a real live (actually dead) human being. For example...

"• Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galations 4:4)
• Jesus was referred to as "Son of God". (1 Cor. 1:9)
• Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
• Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galations 4:6)
• Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
• Jesus taught that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (1 Cor. 9:14)
• Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
• Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)
• Jesus had a brother named James. (Galations 1:19)
• Jesus initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus' death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Cor. 5:7)
• The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Cor. 2:8)
• Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)
• Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
• Jesus died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
• Jesus was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)"

- from here.

It's not my intention to support an apologetic view, but how is it that Christ mythers can claim that Paul thought of Jesus solely as a 'spiritual' being? Is it because he is unfamiliar with later literary inventions like the virgin birth or the trial before the Sanhedrin?

You claim to have read Doherty that he did a fair job of dissecting Paul's theology, but he glossed over a lot to.

If the above isn't pure gloss, what is? Take the first example.

• Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galations 4:4)

This is some kind of interpretation, it doesn't say this in Galations or anywhere else, it's simply declared to without a single word explaining how this interpretation came about. I went to the link, not an explanation, not word to back up a single one of all the claims.



In stark contrast, the following is how Doherty addresses the point:

doherty, jesuspuzzle.com


Galatians 4:4-6

4But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of (a) woman, born under the law, 5in order that he [God] might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying "Father!" 7Therefore, you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. [NASB]

Many point to this passage as "proof" that Paul knows and is speaking of an historical, human Jesus. I deal with this passage extensively in my Supplementary Article No. 8: Christ As "Man", and it will also be discussed in the Appendix to this feature. Here I will point out the basic difficulties in so relying on this passage.

The two "sent" verbs of verses 4 and 6 are exactly the same, yet the latter specifies that it is the Son’s spirit which God sends, not his bodily person. And when is it that God "sent his son"? When "we were children" (4:1) in order to confer the rights of sons, which happens when God sends the Son’s spirit, all of which happens in the Pauline present. Most perplexing of all, why in the phrase "to redeem those under the law" is it, grammatically speaking, God who is doing the redeeming and not Jesus himself? The same oddity occurs in verse 7. As the NEB phrases it: "You are . . . also by God’s own act an heir." Why is Paul incapable of focusing on Jesus, in his recent incarnation and historical deeds of redemption, as the source of all these benefits?

[ I often quote Burton’s observation (International Critical Commentary, Galatians, p.218-19) that, grammatically speaking, the phrases "born of woman [Burton prefers it without the article], born under the law" are not necessarily linked temporally with the "God sent his Son," but are simply stated characteristics of the Son. And why is Paul bothering to say at all that Jesus was born of (a) woman? Would this not be self-evident if he was an historical man? Rather, he needs to make a paradigmatic parallel with those being redeemed, who were themselves born of woman and born under the law. Heavenly counterpart figures could guarantee certain effects on their initiates precisely because they reflected, or underwent, the same features and experiences as their earthly counterparts. Can a spirit world deity be ‘born of woman’? He can in the mythical sense (as with the savior god Dionysos), and he can if scripture says that he was. The famous Isaiah 7:14, "A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son and will call him Immanuel," was a prominent messianic text which early Christians could not ignore. Even the "born under the law" might, in Paul’s very imaginative use of scripture, be derived from his interpretation of Christ as Abraham’s "seed" in Galatians 3:16. ]

Now who's glossing over?



There's no point going over all of them, they are all addressed in the links I provided and besides, you don't present an argument, merely unsubstantiated claims, and I'm the creationist in all of this.


But let's look at just one:

• Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)


Correction, Paul wrote this information decades before Mark. The author of Mark wrote that Jesus gave him this name when writing his gospel fiction. Paul wrote decades before Mark, so the logical conclusion is that Mark was aware of Paul's letters, or what was contained therein.

[d.thomas]

The early Gospel writers arguably knew of each other (and Mark via Peter) so what precudes them from sharing common accounts in say, 32-33 AD right after the resurrection?

Lotan will be very happy if you culd show some evidence that this is true, and not later tradition.

I'm still waiting on some credible evidence that Q ever existed and is more than a rambling hypothesis.

It's also clear that later Gospel writers relied heavily on Mark and on Q and not much else.

Easyrider: That's not clear at all. In fact there's no credible historical or archaelogical evidence that I am aware of that supports that.

No credible evidence?

None. Nada. Nilch. Not one shred of archaeological or historical evidence.

How about the opinion of every actual scholar who has studied the NT?

A gross, inaccurate overgeneralization. And I'm looking for evidence, not just opinions. Where's the evidence for Q outside of conjecture? Why should we believe that vs. what numerous early church fathers quoted about apostolic Gospel authorship?

The fact is, no one had ever heard of Q before recent history. No one has ever seen even a fragment of Q. In addition, Q takes on a life of its own. It can be whatever the skeptic says it is. There's no limitations on how long it is, who possibly wrote it, when it was written, or anything like that, because nobody really knows squat about it. It's an irrefutable hypothesis, which is a clear warning flag of pseudoscience. But you guys do love your unfounded hypotheses, I'll give you that much.

The evidence for Matthew's and Luke's dependence on Mark is overwhelming, not so much for John, but still there. The Gospel of Mark is contained within Matthew and Luke. They copied it word for word except for a few corrections here and there to suite their own agenda. You can see for yourself. All Matthew and Luke did was take copies of Mark and add their own birth stories to them as well as their own post resurrection story. Also, you will find a list of sayings and teachings that are only found in Matthew and Luke, again copied word for word and placed in various places throughout the story. There is no evidence that Matthew, Mark and Luke knew each other, in fact, the birth stories and post resurrections differ so much that it is apparent that they failed to compare notes.