In Search of Historic Jesus

[Raf]

Most Historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an itinerant preacher in what we now call the early first century who was executed by the Romans and around whom Christianity was founded.

I am increasingly of the belief that there was no historic Jesus, and that if there had been, Paul would never have succeeded as his most influential apostle.

I believe his entire earthly history is completely fictional, and when we weed out the known forgeries of scripture, you are left without a scrap of evidence of an earthly ministry of Jesus.

This thesis comes with some questions that are difficult to answer, but in my view, those questions are not nearly as difficult as the questions raised by the hypothesis that he was a real historical figure.

I have read Bart Ehrman's book on the topic, which holds the traditional/majority view that Jesus really existed and his identity/fate is a question of faith. I've also read numerous writers who claim he never existed at all. The most convincing of them is named Richard Carrier, who is well qualified in the field of the history of the time.

I found Carrier's position far more convincing than Ehrman's.

Am I 100% convinced? No. But at least 90.

I'll be sharing thoughts on the subject on this thread. Feel free to ask questions. I I can answer them I will. If not, I will admit I have no response. I assure you there are questions I cannot answer.

But the conversation is, in my view, far more interesting than traditionalists would have you believe.

[waysider]

Looking forward to it.

[Nathan_Jr]

Though I haven’t read Cartier, I am familiar with him and others (Price, Avalos…) through lectures, debates and discussions on the inter webs.

Would you please expound on this sentence?

I am increasingly of the belief that there was no historic Jesus, and that if there had been, Paul would never have succeeded as his most influential apostle.

 

[waysider]

Here is a depiction of how the bible documents the sequencing of his lifetime.

Kind of like writing your own letter of reference, I know, but still enlightening.

HERE

[Raf]

1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Would you please expound on this sentence?

I am increasingly of the belief that there was no historic Jesus, and that if there had been, Paul would never have succeeded as his most influential apostle.

Briefly, sure.

Paul brags that he never learned anything from the apostles. He says everything he got, he got directly from Jesus in visions (Galatians 1:11-24). With a historic Jesus, this makes no sense. Who would BRAG about not learning from the apostles? Paul did. It does not make sense that a movement founded by Jesus of Nazareth would launch the baton over the people closest to him and hand it to someone Jesus had never met.

Imagine the audacity of saying I know the will of Jesus without having to consult the people who were closest to him!

The 12 apostles would have shut Paul down.

Paul mentions NOTHING about the actual life of Jesus. His description of the death and resurrection bear no resemblance to the gospel accounts (which had not yet been made up). His proofs of the resurrection fail to mention an empty tomb, which at the time would have been a big deal.

This is just glossing over the info, not really giving it full consideration. GSC is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation service.

[Nathan_Jr]

26 minutes ago, Raf said:

Briefly, sure.

Paul brags that he never learned anything from the apostles. He says everything he got, he got directly from Jesus in visions (Galatians 1:11-24). With a historic Jesus, this makes no sense. Who would BRAG about not learning from the apostles? Paul did. It does not make sense that a movement founded by Jesus of Nazareth would launch the baton over the people closest to him and hand it to someone Jesus had never met.

Imagine the audacity of saying I know the will of Jesus without having to consult the people who were closest to him!

The 12 apostles would have shut Paul down.

Paul mentions NOTHING about the actual life of Jesus. His description of the death and resurrection bear no resemblance to the gospel accounts (which had not yet been made up). His proofs of the resurrection fail to mention an empty tomb, which at the time would have been a big deal.

This is just glossing over the info, not really giving it full consideration. GSC is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation service.

Perfect. Brevity is all I can expect. Thank you. I get the point.

I am suspicious of Paul for many reasons, bragging about not getting his evangelon from the apostles being one of them. And he admits to lying, if that's what it takes to get converts. 

I can't remember his position. Does Carrier argue that the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery? Or partially forged?

[Raf]

2 hours ago, waysider said:

Here is a depiction of how the bible documents the sequencing of his lifetime.

Kind of like writing your own letter of reference, I know, but still enlightening.

HERE

WIll watch this later, but the story of Jesus becomes a lot more interesting when you go in chronological order of when the books of the Bible are written. What emerges is the story of something that happened in "the heavenlies" that could only be discerned through scripture, which would EASILY explain why Paul would be the first person writing about it while others who were allegedly closer to him don't actually commit much (if anything) to paper. The closest you get is Peter, who mentions nothing of an earthly ministry (I Peter being relevant, II Peter being recognized by scholars as a forgery).

Paul's failure to acknowledge the betrayal/death of Judas makes a LOT more sense when you realize he wrote before that story was concocted. For him, Jesus was seen of the 12 after his resurrection. 

But to Paul, everything about Jesus is cosmic. None of it happens on earth. Jesus isn't killed by Pilate and the Romans. He's killed by the princes of this world, who would not have done it had they known the consequences. 

It's been long acknowledged that "Matthew" didn't write the gospel that bears his name (he would not have needed to plagiarize Mark if he were an eyewitness to what he recorded).

It's not until the gospel writers, LONG after Paul, that we see stories of Jesus as an actual human being. They took what he wrote and historicized it. But they didn't collaborate on their accounts. So Luke has him born after the census, Matthew years before. Had he actually been an historical figure, that conflict would have been resolved easily. Matthew has him moving from Judea to Egypt and finally to Nazareth. Luke has his family from Nazareth all along, with the trip to Bethlehem carrying an absolutely absurd justification (a census that makes you register someplace other than where you live? AYFKM?).

We KNOW from history that John the Baptist existed. So we make Jesus his cousin and concoct a story where John defers to Jesus' ministry. The cult around John is thereby coopted to become a Christian appendage.

Honestly, if not for Paul referring to James as "the Lord's brother," I would be utterly convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a fictional character (not just that he wasn't who he claimed to be, but that he was never around to claim it, as historical as King Arthur and Odysseus).

  

[Raf]

Just now, Nathan_Jr said:

I can't remember his position. Does Carrier argue that the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery? Or partially forged?

Entirely. And if you read it, it flows much better without it.

It was CERTAINLY forged partially. Josephus never said "he was the Christ." I mean come ON.

There's a second reference to a Jesus that I have to double check because I honestly don't recall the details other than "um, that's not what happened."

There's also another reference from a historian who is simply repeating what Christians believe, but people act like his reference is a validation of historicity. That would be Tacitus, for those who know. His reference to Jesus is parenthetical to a different point he's making, but because he talks about Pilate, people assume Tacitus checked out Roman records and verified Jesus' execution. No, he did not.

[Nathan_Jr]

There was at least one other Jesus mentioned by Josephus. And did he mention James, also? Can't remember.

Some time ago I stopped trying to sort it all out, but it's all very interesting, still. I believe Jesus probably existed, but most today wouldn't recognize him in his historically factual form, whatever that is.

I don't think the Gospel writers thought they were writing historical accounts the way historians would write today. People expected some mythologizing in their literature and their histories. I don't think the contradictions and incongruities were an issue for the ancient audience - they are only problematic for the inerrantist, the harmonizer, and the glove fitter, people who came along much later.

If Jesus or Buddha or Socrates are not actual, historical people, that's ok with me. 

As Norm MacDonald once said of his novel, Based on a True Story: Not a Memoir, "It's true, but it's not factual." Something like that...

[Raf]

1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:

There was at least one other Jesus mentioned by Josephus. And did he mention James, also? Can't remember.

We were talking about the same reference.

[Rocky]

8 hours ago, Raf said:

GSC is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation service.

Hallelujah!

[cman]

proof of a man that was murdered and his disciples persecuted for many years by the powers of that time, not likely

there is one witness that is undeniably sound though, Paul speaks of it constantly in his letters

[Raf]

Does he though?

Never met him. Saw him in visions. Swore up and down he never learned from those later alleged to be his closest friends and family? Never referenced the empty tomb. Never talked about his disciples. Is Paul REALLY useful?

[waysider]

3 hours ago, Raf said:

Is Paul REALLY useful?

Is it just me, or did anyone else ever consider that Paul might have been a nutjob?

[Raf]

The thought did cross my mind

[Nathan_Jr]

Been thinking about why Peter and James didn't squash Paul. Who knows...

Maybe because they had received intimate, secret training. Maybe they had been taught to guard the secrets and were warned of others' misunderstanding. Maybe they'd been warned not give too much attention, lest they give credence, to blow hard charlatans who just knew that they knew that they knew.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 17 by Nathan_Jr

[Raf]

I look at Paul like Chris Geer showing up at HQ four years after Wierwille's death, scolding everyone like he's Wierwille's true heir, 'cept he never met Wierwille and spent three years as a deprogrammer. And the Trustees were like, he must be Wierwille's heir. God told him!

Like, no one would ever believe it, and rightly so.

[Nathan_Jr]

Yeah. Kinda like that.

 

Paul had visions; Wierwille saw snow.  

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Regarding Paul, who wrote the most New Testament scriptures. At least Paul showed humility in comparing himself to the original apostles.

1 Corinthians 15:9-10

9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.  (NKJV)
 

In addition, Paul was a friend of Luke, the medical physician, who perhaps wrote the second most amount of scriptures. 

2 Timothy 4:11
11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry.  (NKJV)
Colossians 4:14
14 Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.  (NKJV)
 

Edited February 21 by Mark Sanguinetti

[cman]

Good summary Mark. Comparing what happened to twi to the first century is foolish I believe. 

[Raf]

Luke did not write the gospel or the book of Acts. Authorship of the gospel was attributed to him decades after it was written. And the history invented in the book of Acts is refuted by Paul. One can be true or the other, but not both.
Paul verifies very little of the account of Acts and nothing of the gospel of Luke other than the death and resurrection, which he portrays as a celestial event. The crucifixion to Paul is not at the hands of the Romans or the Jews, but at the hands of "the princes of this world," which was by no stretch of the imagination a description of Pilate or the Sanhedrin.

Paul also did not write I Timothy or II Timothy, since we're having fun.

 

Edited February 21 by Raf

[cman]

I doubt your conclusions Raf, though I respect your right to voice them.

[Raf]

Oh they are not mine. They are the scholarly consensus. 

[Mark Sanguinetti]

4 hours ago, Raf said:

Paul also did not write I Timothy or II Timothy, since we're having fun.

1 Timothy 1:1-2

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope,  2 To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.  (NKJV)

What ever people want to believe is up to the individual  person. Paul also called Saul with his other Jewish name. When Jesus Christ appeared to him, made a major change from a hateful Pharisee, to a peaceful and humble person. When Saul or Paul was a Pharisee, he was even involved in a religious murder of a Christian.

[Raf]

actually, I said that wrong. My comment on the scholarly consensus is limited to the authorship of the Pauline epistles.