Whether Jesus existed or not doesn't really matter. The interesting thing is that 2000 years later we're still talking about him..
************* Not all of us, but be it as it may, we're still talking about Zeus and Hera, too. And your point would be?
Greetings CA, Thanks for your comments Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, the conflict between Paul and the pillars seems real enough, but that has nothing to do with a HJ. It seems highly likely that Paul and James existed, but the same can not be said of the apostles. The cult DID congeal around a charismatic leader - Paul. But Paul shows not the slightest hint of a historical Jesus before him - he goes out of his way to argue he learnt from "no man", but rather from visions - this is just not compatible with a recent HJ. Well, nowadays the argument is expressed in terms of - * historical Jesus vs * mythical/spiritual Jesus Back then, the argument was more in terms of * physical Jesus vs * non-physical Jesus. And in fact, numerous early Christians argued Jesus was NOT a PHYSICAL being, or denied the crucifixion really happened, or denied the resurrection - * 2 John warns of those who don't "acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh". * Marcion argued Jesus was a phantom being : “...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...” * Polycarp's epistle decries those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh : "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist" * Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified as a physical being : "Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies" * Bardesanes, in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ was physical : "...assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual;" * Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations. "...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" * Simon and Cleobius, according to The Acts of Paul, denied the physical crucifixion - “For there were certain men come to Corinth, Simon and Cleobius, saying: There is no resurrection of the flesh, but that of the spirit only: and that the body of man is not the creation of God; and also concerning the world, that God did not create it, and that God knoweth not the world, and that Jesus Christ was not crucified, but it was an appearance (i.e. but only in appearance), and that lie was not born of Mary, nor of the seed of David.” * Celsus also called Jesus a “shadow” (according to Origen) : “Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop--for I will take the word that Celsus employs--did really appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. “ * Hegesippus, late 2nd century reports sects that did not believe in the resurrection : ' Now some persons belonging to the seven sects existing among the people, ... asked him [James]: "What is the door of Jesus? " And he replied that He was the Saviour. In Consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; ' * Sadducees, doubted the resurrection (according to Tertullian in early 3rd century) : “Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.” * Heretics, mentioned in the 4th century Constitution of the Holy Apostles : “ ... avoid all heretics who ... also deny His generation according to the flesh; they are ashamed of the cross; they abuse His passion and His death; they know not His resurrection;” * Faustus, according to Augustine, denied the incarnation and the reality of the crucifixion : “...still you deny His birth from a virgin, and assert His death on the cross to have been feigned, which is equivalent to denying it too;” * Some who denied the incarnation, according to 5th century John Cassian : “By denying also that the Son of God was born in the flesh, you are led also to deny that He was born in the Spirit, for it is the same Person who was born in the flesh who was first born in the Spirit. If you do not believe that He was born in the flesh, the result is that you do not believe that He suffered. If you do not believe in His Passion what remains for you but to deny His resurrection?” They are reasonable postulates, but the MJ is what best fits the evidence, in my view. Iasion
That's perhaps clever, Iasion, but I thought we were speaking of the presumed origins and evolution of the Jerusalem cult. Why the diversion? Again clever, but far less compelling. In fact, to reframe the internal disputes concerning the nature of Jesus as debates concerning historicity seems a bit disingenuous. Where are the pagans insisting that Jesus never existed? By the way, I'm curious as to your take on "Q" and the Gospel of Thomas.
Greetings Paula, Thanks for your reply. Pardon? I said nothing about the first 28 books of the bible. I noted that the 20 or so CHRONOLOGICALLY FIRST Christian documents show NO knowledge of the Gospel events - you ignored this point. How do YOU explain that Paula? Absolute poppycock! There are NO (Christian) writings from the time of Jesus. There are NO mention by ANY Christian of such writings from the time of Jesus. There is NO evidence of such writings from the time of Jesus. In fact, I have NEVER EVER even HEARD of ANYONE ever make that claim before - did you just make it up just now? Rubbish. The Gospels were not by eye-witnesses, only fundamentalist faithful Christians believe that old legend. Even some early Christian fathers (e.g. Papias, Clement, Tertullian) noted that the Gospels were NOT by eye-witnesses. I gave clear evidence that the Gospels were not known until early-mid 2nd century - they were originally anonymous documents of UNKNOWN provenance, not being named until late 2nd century. This is clearly shown by the fact that NO CHRISTIAN writer shows ANY KNOWLEDGE of the Gospels or their contents, until about a CENTURY after the alleged events. How do YOU explain that Paula? Nonsense, many of the epistles of the NT are FORGED long after the events! e.g. the letters of Peter were FORGED long after he allegedly lived, the letter of James was similarly forged long afterwards, several letters attributed to Paul are later forgeries also. How do YOU explain that Paula? Absolute nonsense. The Gospels were unknown until a CENTURY after the events. Even the central mystery of Christianity - the empty tomb - was TOTALLY UNKNOWN to ANY Christian until a CENTURY after the alleged events. How do YOU explain that Paula? And some isues, such as the Trinity, were not added until CENTURIES later. Rubbish. The Gospel of Mark was written by someone unknown, then later copied and expanded by the others - the origin of the Gospels is an allegorical STORY written by one person. Rubbish. The Gospel stories were totally UNKNOWN until a CENTURY after the alleged events - the Gospels were not finally named until late 2nd century - thats 150 YEARS after the alleged events before the four Gospels were named. Sorry Paula, but you have given nothing but faithful Christian apologetics, totally un-supported by ANY evidence or argument. If you actually checks the facts, you will find none of your claims hold water. Iasion
Greetings, Pardon? The thread is about whether Jesus existed, I have written at length about the existence (or not) of Jesus. You then brought up the subject of the Jerusalem cult, and now you accuse me of a "diversion"? Odd. Iasion
Please, Iasion, don't play games. I'm attempting an honest discussion. I wrote "I can see little reason to view the Jerusalem sect and its tension with Paul as fictive, nor a reason to presume that this cult congealed in the absence of a charismatic cult leader. You responded: "Yes, the conflict between Paul and the pillars seems real enough, but that has nothing to do with a HJ. It seems highly likely that Paul and James existed, but the same can not be said of the apostles. The cult DID congeal around a charismatic leader - Paul." I was clearly suggesting the evolution of a Jerusalem sect as circumstantial evidence of an early cult leader, and no, Iasion, the Jerusalem sect did not congeal around Paul.
Does naming them suddenly make them more real than they were before? Anyway, the consensus of scholars on earlychristianwritings.com seems to disagree with you.
Papias does in fact say that Mark was authored by a disciple of Peter from speeches made by Peter and Matthew was created by the apostle Matthew. As for Clement of Rome, I have not read any mention of where the books came from in his writings and I'm uncertain about Tertullian. Paul's writings certainly do have knowledge of gospel events.
Iaison, "Absolute poppycock! There are NO (Christian) writings from the time of Jesus. There are NO mention by ANY Christian of such writings from the time of Jesus. There is NO evidence of such writings from the time of Jesus. In fact, I have NEVER EVER even HEARD of ANYONE ever make that claim before - did you just make it up just now?" Right, I made up the Laws of Canonicity which anyone can look up for themselves. If everything someone tells you that disagrees with your position is met with "Rubbish!" without your even bothering to do the simplest web search, then of course it will appear to you that your logic is impenetrable.
Rather than whine, why not simply respond to his dating of the Epistles, Gospels, and Pastorals, and his characterizaton of their authors. Perhaps you could then tell us why 2 Timothy is deemed Canonical?
Greetings, Well, I was just a little miffed that you seemed to be accusing me of some sort of deception. I see your point. I don't think it carries much weight though, because we don't see any early evidence of such a leader - except for Paul and James. Consider the Mithras cult which grew and spread without a real Mithras (c.f. Attis or Dionysos.) I find it instructive that in the argument between Paul and the Jerusalem pillars, Paul makes it clear he is "just as much an Apostle" as they are. And they never say anything like "well, we KNEW Jesus - you didn't" Iasion
Greetings Jenyar, Thanks for your reply Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, but the fact that the Gospels were not named until a century-and-a-half after the alleged events sure argues against their legitimacy. Peter's site is a superb resource - I use it often. Yes, the consensus of scholars dates the Gospels earlier than I stated - but the vast majority of these "scholars" are devout Christians who are creedally committed to a belief in Jesus - of course they support the Gospels as early - their faith depends on it. However, to be specific - Peter's site does NOT disagree with my claims : I did not argue for when the Gospels were written - that is a very thorny question. What I DID argue is when Christians showed knowledge of the Gospel events - I checked these details for myself, and present the evidence here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html I don't think anyone here even LOOKED at my page, let alone provided any arguments against it :-( Iasion
Greetings okinrus, Thanks for your reply Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Indeed, he notes Mark was not an eye-witness : "For he was not a hearer or follower of the Lord..." But the evidence does NOT support Mark being a follower of Peter - e.g. G.Mark does NOT show Peter's authority like other Gospels do. Indeed - he notes that "So, then, Matthew compiled the Sayings of the Lord in the Hebrew language." A collection of "sayings" in Hebrew is NOT the same as our modern G.Matthew - which is a narrative, and not written in Hebrew originally. Clement : "Clement [wrote] that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances - Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter's knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." Tertullian : "that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people... The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage--I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew--whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men unsually ascribe to Paul. " I disagree, and look forward to your evidence Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Paul mentions the resurrection as a spiritual concept - not a single mention of anything historical - no date, time, place, names etc. Paul mentions spiritual appearances by Jesus - nothing about a historical Jesus. Iasion
Greetingas Paula, Well, I'm sorry if my tone offended you. Of course I can "look up" your "Laws of Canonicity" and find Christian web-sites which agree with you. So what? That is proof of nothing (except faithful credulity.) There are also numerous sites with disagree with you and agree with me - why don't YOU look those up Paula? It seems your idea of "research" is to look for Christian apologetic web sites which agree with you. I presented numerous arguments based on the ACTUAL ORIGINAL sources - not opinions from millenia after the events. You totally ignored all of my points Paula, showing you don't have any answers at all. I'll ask you again - How do YOU explain the fact that not ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN shows any knowledge of the empty tomb until a CENTURY after the alleged events? Iasion
