Jesus is the reason baby

[dastardly stem]

For me, the question of existence or myth is unimportant because the myth could very well have been created around a real person. I don't think he walked on water or did the other miracles and perhaps was an amalgam of many "messiahs" running around at the time. The atonement claim is nonsensical in that if one imagines a powerful god or an all-powerful one, certainly that god always had the power to forgive his supposed children without a blood sacrifice. Also, this god couldn't resurrect anyone with out the blood sacrifice coming first? Even so, such a person being the basis for all this myth could certainly have existed.

yep. Understandable. I'll continue to argue that this perspective needs some good healthy data behind it, but in the meantime, I'm happy to say it's very possible.

[dastardly stem]

I read your post, Stem. I've never followed the debates about Jesus existing, and so I'm responding as a complete novice.

If Paul mentions Peter and James and the rest of the apostles, not as followers of a previously living Jesus, but as fellow believers who witnessed Jesus just as Paul did in vision,

but were revealed to him, via revelation or through scripture. Paul didn't think there were disciples of a mortal Jesus walking around with him. He thought there were fellow believers and fellow apostles who were called via revelation from Jesus.

what is the backdrop for this kind of mystical beliefs? We're saying that Paul, Peter, and James all read the scriptures independently and came to believe a mystical Jesus figure had called them as disciples?

That is basically what Richard Carrier posits in his book On the Historicity of Jesus. The perplexing non mention by Paul (in the 7 authentic letters) is the lead. But we hear exactly nothing from Peter, or James, nor any other later named apostles (as both of Peter's letters and James' letter appear to be forgeries). Paul seems to define an apostle as one who has had a vision of Jesus. Paul doesn't talk about "disciples" nor followers in the sense of people who sat at Jesus' feet and learned from him. Paul also explicitly suggests he never received the teachings he espouses from man, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (gal.1:11-12). Oddly if Paul were preaching Jesus' gospel while others who knew Jesus were around, you'd think he'd have some input from them. There is a mention that he spoke with Peter and James, but, it is suggested, that meeting didn't go well for Paul as he didn't think they really brought anything to the table.

Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, right? And so a very serious guy suddenly feels "called" and then makes up a new religion and goes around preaching it? There were other people who had decided a mystical being called Jesus had called them, Paul has some of these people stoned, but then suddenly believes he's one of them?

It's not that Paul made it up. There surely was some semblance of the religion or ideas floating around before him (his mention of Peter and James suggest they were believers and leaders before him). He had his revelation of Jesus last of all (1 Cor. 15:8-9). But it seems pretty obvious he made up parts of the religion, while claiming revelation. The important part is Paul isn't interested in what others say. His take is all via revelation. And he doesn't speak of a mortal Jesus, except in an ambiguous or confusing way.

Matthew copies 90% of Mark. That's not independence.

Does the 10% not copied talk about Jesus?
[/quote]

Sure. There are stories about Jesus added by Matthew.

Thanks for reading and the questions.

[Dr Exiled]

For me, the question of existence or myth is unimportant because the myth could very well have been created around a real person. I don't think he walked on water or did the other miracles and perhaps was an amalgam of many "messiahs" running around at the time. The atonement claim is nonsensical in that if one imagines a powerful god or an all-powerful one, certainly that god always had the power to forgive his supposed children without a blood sacrifice. Also, this god couldn't resurrect anyone with out the blood sacrifice coming first? Even so, such a person being the basis for all this myth could certainly have existed.

Dr exiled,
I have been inclined to think there was more to it than just being forgiven. I cannot remember hearing that people could not be resurrected without Jesus dying, But people propose this that and the other.

"Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."

Yeah, perhaps then you could explain it in a few sentences and hopefully without an appeal to the inability to understand it.

[huckelberry]

Dr exiled,
I have been inclined to think there was more to it than just being forgiven. I cannot remember hearing that people could not be resurrected without Jesus dying, But people propose this that and the other.

"Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."

Yeah, perhaps then you could explain it in a few sentences and hopefully without an appeal to the inability to understand it.

One could consider that Jesus wanted to transform the world into something better than the old enslaved to people having power over each other. Our old dies with him and new possibilities are shared with him.

yes , the success has so far left much to be desired.

[drumdude]

I’ll stick with the academic consensus on the historicity of Jesus and if that consensus shifts then I’ll happily change with it.


But I do find the discussion interesting and appreciate opposing points of view. They are what changes consensus over time, when strong enough.

[Manetho]

As it turns out, the growing number of qualified scholars turning to mythicism is interesting.

Which scholars are you referring to? The only mythicists with scholarly credentials that I'm aware of are Carrier and Robert M. Price, both of whom have been at it for years.

Reasoning that "no Jews would have expected a crucified messiah" is just silly, since that is exactly what would be expected.

Why is it "exactly what would be expected"?

[Kishkumen]

I join my voice to Manetho’s on that last question.

[Gadianton]

What I want to know is if the mystical religion that Paul and allegedly a handful of others believed in based on the inferences mentioned by stem fits in with other mystery movements at the time.

For instance, in our day, we have Q, who doesn't exist but people believe Q exists and his mythology is partially driven by the more formal "baker" conspiracy theorists, and part by crowd fantasy.

Jesus could have been the Q of that day. But, while it's possible such inventions could exist back then, it would help credibility in my mind if there were other movements of the same kind that are better established from that time. For Jesus to be part of a wholly original kind of movement of which absolutely no evidence for such a kinds of movements exist save the inferences about Jesus, you're positing the existence of both a new class and the one and only member of the class all at the same time.

So again, for me, it would help a lot to first establish the class: there existed mystery religions in that era based purely on personal revelatory authority. Here are examples. Then establish a new member: Look, Paul and these other guys seem to fit this other established model.

Sure, it's possible that this was a one-off kind of religion and the only example ever of it from that time, and if it is it is, but it's establishing a whole heck of a lot from very little.

[Kishkumen]

My understanding is that the argument flows from the existence of mystery cults of Dionysus, Mithras, etc. Jesus is just the latest of these figures.

[huckelberry]

from stems post:
" I'll deal with one, the most credible of the two--Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus exist?.

It's chock full of problems. Here's a major one:"

We cannot think of the early Christian Gospels as going back to a solitary source that ‘invented’ the idea that there was a man Jesus. The view that Jesus existed is found in multiple independent sources that must have been circulating throughout various regions of the Roman Empire in the decades before the Gospels that survive were produced. Where would the solitary source that ‘invented’ Jesus be? Within a couple of decades of the traditional date of his death, we have numerous accounts of his life found in a broad geographical span. In addition to Mark, we have Q, M (which is possibly made of multiple sources), L (also possibly multiple sources), two or more passion narratives, a signs source, two discourse sources, the kernel (or original) Gospel behind the Gospel of Thomas, and possibly others. And these are just the ones we know about, that we can reasonably infer from the scant literary remains that survive from the early years of the Christian church. No one knows how many there actually were. Luke says there were ‘many’ of them, and he may well have been right.
– Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Did Jesus Exist,’ pg. 163-164

Stem continues:
"No. We don't have Q, nor M nor L. We don't have any of this. This is all speculation. And yet, Bart's book is the best source we have for arguing for historicity, at least written in our modern era. it seems to me we either assume Jesus lived for the sake of argument, or pretend we know more than we do, because we want to and we want to be dogmatic about it, as Ehrman tends to be. Whenever we hypothesize "there must have been something before this" we are guessing there was something and we'd be guessing what that hypothewe do have, as Bart attempts to do in his book and arguments for historicity. Our best guesses can't possibly mean we can reliably say those guesses really existed 2,000 years ago. This type of begging the question type of "
///////
Huckelberry wonders,
I find Mr Ehrmans comments to be reasonable . I do not see why Stem is waving his arms about dismissing Q.

Stem, what does a book have to do to qualify as argument for Jesus existence. There have been numerous scholarly books about the historical Jesus making analysis of evidence.