Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[historia]

Paul does NOT say he met Jesus' brother James.
YOU say that.

Or, more precisely, I've given an argument as to why that interpretation makes the best sense of the text in light of our background knowledge.

That's what historical analysis entails, see post 29.

Paul referred to the 'the Brother of the Lord' like a TITLE.

How so? Paul's usage here follows what we might expect him to say were he actually referring to the brother of Jesus.

We phrase thing similarly all the time. For example, in describing Canadian politics, I might make reference to Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau, the Prime Minister's wife. "The Prime Minister's wife" is not a title, that simply an expression of her relationship to her husband, Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister. The same holds true here with James, "the Lord's brother."

Moreover, if this was, in fact, a title, so that "brother of the Lord" was some kind of office in the early Church, it seems reasonable to me that we should expect to see it listed among other offices and titles enumerated in the New Testament.

Ephesians 4:11, for example, says: "The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers," while other texts mention "deacons" and "bishops." But "brother of the Lord" is never listed among these titles and offices, which is odd if, as you contend, it was such.

Paul does NOT defer to James in any way, which he WOULD have if he was really Jesus' brother.

I see no reason to assume Paul would always have deferred to James just because he was Jesus' brother.

Paul does NOT say he got any information from James about Jesus, which he WOULD have.

I see no reason to assume Paul would have done this.

On the contrary - Paul insists he an 'apostle' who 'has seen the Lord' just like them. Seen in a VISION, just like all of them.

Sure, the apostles of the early Christian community were those who claimed to have experienced the risen Christ -- most critical scholars think as visions -- after Jesus' death. Paul made that claim, too.

This doesn't preclude Paul meeting Jesus' brother.

Paul goes to Jerusalem and doesn't give the slightest hint that the crucifixion happened there.

Paul was not trying to write a biography of Jesus. In his letters, he's addressing various theological disputes at specific congregations. The idea, then, that he would interrupt his letters to relay various extraneous historical details that have no bearing on his argument is silly.

Paul uses the word 'brother' (and sister) many times, and it is nearly always metaphorical :

1 Cor 1:1 Sosthenes is "brother" - not literal.

Col. 1:1 Timothy is "brother" - not literal.

1 Cor 15:6 500 "brothers" - not literal.

Phil 1:14 "brothers in the Lord" - not literal.

1 Cor 9:5 "the brothers of the Lord", followed by "sister wife".
Sister wife is clearly NOT literal, why would the "brothers" be?

1 Cor 6:5 "brothers" and "brethren" - not literal.

Eph. 6:21 Tychicus "dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord" - not literal.

Heb 2:11-12 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying,
“I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.�

(Not all really by Paul, but continue the theme.)

Yes, I already mentioned this in my earlier post:

First, although Paul does indeed refer to believers in Jesus as "brothers" or "sisters", he never uses the phrase "brother(s) of the Lord" to refer to Christians generally. That only appears here in these two specific cases.

Obviously, just because Paul can use a specific term metaphorically, doesn't mean he always used it metaphorically. We have to assess each case individually, taking into account the context and our background knowledge.

As we've already seen, Carrier's contention that "brother of the Lord" is simply a metaphorical way of speaking of any Christian renders the passages in Galatians and 1 Corinthians nonsensical. Likewise, your contention above that it is a title is disconfirmed by the lack of expected evidence elsewhere.

However, the interpretation that Paul means James is literally the brother of Jesus makes good sense of the passage, and is supported by the tradition that Jesus had a brother named James recorded in the Gospels, as well as Josephus' reference in Antiquities.

This seems the best explanation, then.

This, coupled with the fact that even Josephus at the end of the century knew of James as the brother of Jesus Christ

It's a FACT to hyperbelievers, damn the evidence ! full speed ahead !

Here, as elsewhere, you seem to imagine that anyone who disagree with you does so simply because they have not considered the evidence or any contrary arguments.

I can assure you I have read Carrier's two-volume work on the historicity of Jesus, as well as his article published in the Journal of Early Christian Studies on this passage from Josephus.

I just find his arguments wanting in certain key places, and thus disagree with his conclusions.

[historia]

First and foremost, I sincerely commend your command of the material. That is, you obviously have much more than a passing familiarity with the material with which you may disagree. Moreover, it's my opinion that you are treating it in a relatively dispassionate manner. Again, I think that's exceptional.

Thanks for the kind words, Titus. I too appreciate your thoughtful, dispassionate approach to this topic, as that seems to be in rather short supply elsewhere in these threads.

However, I am genuinely curious as to your justification for Galatians 4:4. To me, it is often trotted out by apologists to justify orthodox view, but in my opinion, it does precisely the opposite. That is, when would one ever have to mention that someone had a mother?

Here's my thoughts. The expression Paul uses here is "born of woman" (so ESV, see the Greek), which appears to have been a common Jewish expression denoting one's status as a human being, often comparing that 'lowly' state to the divine.

In the Jewish scriptures we see this clearly in Job:

A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble, comes up like a flower and withers, flees like a shadow and does not last.

What are mortals, that they can be clean? Or those born of woman, that they can be righteous?

How then can a mortal be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure?

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke record Jesus contrasting our current state compared to that in the age to come:

I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

And, to complete our picture, here are two examples from the Talmud:

They said: This manna will swell up their bowels, for is there one born of woman who absorbs food without eliminating it too?

When Moses ascended on high, the ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Sovereign of the Universe! What business has one born of woman amongst us?"

That last example provides a good transition back to the text in Galatians. Here it is again:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Paul is saying that, in order to redeem those under the law, God's Son had to be under the law himself.

Now, not just anyone or anything is under the law. Gentiles are not under the law, for example, nor are angels or other heavenly beings. Only the Jews were under the law. To be under the law, then, God's son had to be fully human ("born of woman") and also a Jew ("born under the law").

Why the need to emphasize that? Perhaps because Paul believed the Messiah pre-existed in some capacity before coming to the earth. This is already hinted at in passage itself when Paul says God "sent forth" his Son. But passages elswhere in Paul's writings, especially Philippians 2:5-11, make this even more explicit.

[Talishi]

But this in no way suggests that I'm agreeing that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Gospels was an actual historical person.

If I wrote a "Gospel of John F. Kennedy" and described how the President made disciples of Elvis and Norma Jean and died in Dallas for our sins, the time differential between the actual JFK and my "gospel" is roughly the same between the crucifixion of the political agitator named Yeshua bar Yosef and the Marcan account.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'm not sure which debate exactly you refer to (maybe there was only one), but the one I saw had WLC presupposing God exists in order to support his argument. He lost right there in my opinion. Even disregarding that, he went on to rely on consensus of scholars a lot rather than actually discussing the evidence at hand. In contrast Carrier went through an analysis of the gospel texts and epistles showing the parallel with already existing myths. It was a real difference of debating style for sure. WLC probably sounded great to believers due to what almost amounted to preaching in many of his points, versus Carrier's focus on actual textual analysis and discussion of evidence.

All of that is hogwash considering the fact that Carrier has already admitted his defeat, even though he claimed he wasn't trying to "win" in the first place LOL. He admitted he was dissappointed in his performance.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009 ... -wrap.html

I also find it telling that when describing the debate you label one of the participants as an infidel as if that somehow changes the exchange that actually took place.

According to dictionary.com, an infidel is a person who does not accept a particular faith, especially Christianity. Not only doesn't Carrier accept Christianity, but he doesn't even believe that Jesus EXISTED at all.

So, you find it telling that I used a word which properly describes Dr. Carrier as it relates to Christianity?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Thus, from a Theist point of view people must be equally adept at writing and verbal debate?

Hey, no one told Carrier to accept the debate. I am not going to accept a SERIOUS race with Usain Bolt...would you?

It is unfortunate that this Forum does not have strong theistic debaters whose arguments do not depend on the likes of “People 2000 years ago believed that a long-dead body came back to life so that is the most likely explanation for the claimed empty tomb�

It is also unfortunate that this Forum does not have strong unbelieving debaters who won't bring natural arguments to a debate of supernatural significance.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 56 by Kapyong]


Moderator Warning


Kapyong, I fear your time on this forum will end very soon if the personal attacks against fellow posters does not stop. You have been warned several times. Debate the topic, and leave critical remarks out.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

But this in no way suggests that I'm agreeing that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Gospels was an actual historical person.

If I wrote a "Gospel of John F. Kennedy" and described how the President made disciples of Elvis and Norma Jean and died in Dallas for our sins, the time differential between the actual JFK and my "gospel" is roughly the same between the crucifixion of the political agitator named Yeshua bar Yosef and the Marcan account.

I was in high school the day JFK was shot, and watched much of what occurred on live TV. The actual shooting of JFK wasn't seen on live TV, and I wasn't watching at that point anyway. But I did witness Lee Harvey Oswald killed on live TV. So the question is, does this make me an actual witness to the events surrounding the assassination of the president? I was alive at the time, watched much of the events on live TV, but I was 1500 miles away.

To answer my own question, I would have to say that I was in a much better position to have direct knowledge of what occurred in Dallas in November of 1963 then the author of Gospel Mark was to having any direct knowledge of the supposed resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

So how accurate would my "Gospel of John F. Kennedy" be? Because I still don't feel that I have all the facts and know the entire truth about what occurred that day. And much of what I now think I know has been derived from information that I have learned over the years since. And that information has often been very contradictory. So at best my account would be from the perspective one who is convinced of the single shooter Oswald did it all theory, or from the perspective of one who is convinced of the multiple shooters conspiracy theory.

If, however, I wrote in my Gospel of John F. Kennedy that the president returned to life that Sunday morning and then flew off into the sky, and anyone believed it, their gullibility is on them.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to historia]

Historia,

You make a cogent case for idiomatic/stylistic use. Kudos. I would comment more on the relationship to the kenosis hymn to popular conceptions of historicity (i.e. I think they are discordant), but perhaps will do so at a later date. Until then,

Take care,
TFV

[benchwarmer]

I'm not sure which debate exactly you refer to (maybe there was only one), but the one I saw had WLC presupposing God exists in order to support his argument. He lost right there in my opinion. Even disregarding that, he went on to rely on consensus of scholars a lot rather than actually discussing the evidence at hand. In contrast Carrier went through an analysis of the gospel texts and epistles showing the parallel with already existing myths. It was a real difference of debating style for sure. WLC probably sounded great to believers due to what almost amounted to preaching in many of his points, versus Carrier's focus on actual textual analysis and discussion of evidence.

All of that is hogwash considering the fact that Carrier has already admitted his defeat, even though he claimed he wasn't trying to "win" in the first place LOL. He admitted he was dissappointed in his performance.

Well, if you look closely at the blog he admitted a 'technical' defeat. i.e. he was unable to rebut all the points made in the time allotted. Yes he also admitted disappointment. So? Your original point was that he 'got his ass handed to him' which is an opinion which you are welcome to, but hardly an objective claim. Both sides presented evidence and I personally prefer actual discussion of evidence as opposed to pointing to other scholars and just taking their word for it.

I also find it telling that when describing the debate you label one of the participants as an infidel as if that somehow changes the exchange that actually took place.

According to dictionary.com, an infidel is a person who does not accept a particular faith, especially Christianity. Not only doesn't Carrier accept Christianity, but he doesn't even believe that Jesus EXISTED at all.

So, you find it telling that I used a word which properly describes Dr. Carrier as it relates to Christianity?

Well perhaps I took it wrong since you put it in italics as if to emphasize the word for some reason. If you simply meant it as a pure description rather than a thinly veiled insult then I accept your explanation and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[1213]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?
...

I believe so because I is the best explanation for why we have the Bible.