Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus die before he was born?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1 of 91 (45900)
07-13-2003 1:34 PM


One of the characteristics of myth is that details about the past increase rather than decrease with time. The legends of King Arthur, Robin Hood and William Tell are all excellent examples. If you examine contemporary records you find that very little details are provided. After some time passes by, perhaps a few decades or maybe a century, you find that many details have been added, but the tales still aren't very elaborate. But with the passage of more time more and more stories become added until the myth finally becomes rich and complex.
Could the same be true of the story of Jesus? The Romans kept meticulous records, and yet despite all the turmoil caused by Jesus's ministry, despite the sermon on the mount and the sermon and the plain, despite all the miracles, Jesus received not a single contemporaneous mention. He was greater than John the Baptist, yet John the Baptist is mentioned contemporaneously and Jesus isn't.
The letters of Paul seem to know little about Jesus. There is no mention of his being born of a virgin. In fact, in Galatians 4:4 Paul says, "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law," and in Romans 1:1-3 he says, "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." If Paul were aware of a virgin birth he would have mentioned it in these passages.
Paul also seems unaware of almost any of Jesus's famous sayings, nor the three days in the tomb, nor the ascension to heaven, nor the appearances to the apostles and crowds in Jerusalem.
By the time we reach Mark, the earliest Gospel, the outline of the story of Jesus's ministry is now known, but significant events like the sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plain are missing. These are only filled in by the later Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which also now include the details of his birth and early life.
This increase with time of details about the life of Jesus are consistent with the properties of myth, and it raises an intriguing possibility. Is it possible that Jesus didn't really live in the 1st century AD, thereby explaining the absence of any contemporaneous mention? Might Jesus have actually been the Teacher of Righteousness described in the Dead Sea Scrolls who lived in the 1st or 2nd century BC, or some other pre-Christian saint? In other words, did the real Jesus actually live and die before the Jesus described in the Gospels was ever born?
This would require a reinterpretation of the early history of the Christian church, which would go something like this. The Christian church grew out of a collection of loosely aligned churches of the Jewish Diaspora of the early 1st century AD, perhaps developing out of the Essene movement. In other words, the churches of Corinth and of the Galatians who received letters from Paul existed long before Paul ever began his ministry. These churches were in the habit of receiving missionaries like Paul, each of whom preached their own religious philosophies, and were all roughly but not completely in agreement with one another. One of the disagreements between Paul and Peter is described in Paul's Epistle to the Galatians 2:11-21. And many of Paul's letters are admonitions to these churches to not follow the way of other missionaries, but to instead listen to Paul's message.
Around the time of Paul the missionaries began spreading the word that a highly respected preacher named Jesus of a century or so before had actually been the Messiah, the son of the God, the chosen one who would lead the Jews to freedom and salvation. He had been crucified and suffered for our sins, and now sat at the right hand of God awaiting the time to return. This message was quickly taken up by the churches of the Jewish Diaspora of the 40s and 50s AD, and Paul played a critical role in spreading this message. In fact, it was his particular version of the message that eventually won out. Sometime later, probably late in the 1st century AD or in the first half of the 2nd, these church communities produced the Gospels we know today, providing Jesus with a life and history he never knew, and somehow moving the time forward into the first third of the first century AD, which, coincidentally, corresponds with the beginning of Paul's ministry.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Asgara, posted 07-13-2003 4:20 PM Percy has replied
 Message 4 by doctrbill, posted 07-13-2003 9:26 PM Percy has replied
 Message 16 by truthlover, posted 07-23-2003 8:14 PM Percy has replied
 Message 20 by truthlover, posted 07-23-2003 8:36 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3 of 91 (45915)
07-13-2003 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Asgara
07-13-2003 4:20 PM


Hi, Asgara!
The Bidstrup stuff was pretty interesting - thanks for the link. I was surprised how congruent our views were, though he seems to have done a lot more in-depth research. My views developed from reading books by people like Bidstrup, such as Eisenman, Wise, Spong and Mack, et al, and they apparently have a lot in common with Bidstrup.
I've heard the name Yeshua ben Pantera before, but I'm afraid I can provide no information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Asgara, posted 07-13-2003 4:20 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 5 of 91 (46004)
07-14-2003 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by doctrbill
07-13-2003 9:26 PM


A little more speculation...
It is easy to see how the church communities of the Jewish Diaspora might have produced the gospels. After enough time had passed, say by around 100 AD, any details of Jesus's life were no longer current. During Paul's ministry and up to his death in the 50's the churches did not need to be told who Jesus was. He was a venerated preacher and saint of the previous century, perhaps even the Teacher of Righteousness, who had been crucified and gone to be with the Lord. But by AD 100 this information was no longer known, somehow lost or forgotten amidst all the unrest and strife of the period, particularly the Roman seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple around AD 70. Or perhaps it was known, but the details of when, precisely, he had died had kind of faded with the passage of time, and now Paul and the Apostles and Jesus were all just part and parcel of the same long ago period. Think how long ago 1930 seems to us.
And so these church communities wondered when and how Jesus had died. From Paul's letters they knew that Paul never knew the living Jesus, and so they speculated that Jesus had died shortly before Paul began his ministry. And though Paul had never met the living Jesus, other people Paul mentions like Cephas (Peter) could have met him, indeed, could have been one of the twelve, and so the myth spinning began.
Paul is clear that Jesus was crucified, and while this could only happen at the hands of the Romans since it was the uniquely Roman punishment of the period, the blame is somehow instead placed on the Jews. This lends further confidence for dating the gospels to the 1st century AD, because it would take the passage of a significant amount of time for the churches of the Jewish Diaspora to become sufficiently Christianized that they had lost their earlier feelings of Jewish association.
But where do the stories of Jesus's birth , the star of Bethlemhem, the three wise men, the three days in the tomb, the ascension to heaven and the appearance to the apostles and the crowds in Jerusalem come from, for these are never mentioned by Paul? For these questions there is no more an answer than for any other myth. Someone, somewhere thought it up, or perhaps it developed out of a group dynamic, but made up they were.
A redating of the gospels to the 1st half of the 1st century AD does not much change reconstruction of which sources were used. Clearly Mark was written first, and both Matthew and Luke drew upon Mark, and they all drew upon the Q document, the Gospel of Thomas, and other documents extant at the time.
But what of the Gospel of John? Most scholars date John to much after the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, perhaps around 100 AD. But there seems no need to change this date, and so it raises the possibility that instead of being the last gospel, John is possibly the first!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by doctrbill, posted 07-13-2003 9:26 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 07-15-2003 8:29 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2003 10:50 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 9 by MrHambre, posted 07-15-2003 11:50 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 33 by Theologian63, posted 07-24-2003 2:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 30 of 91 (47275)
07-24-2003 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by truthlover
07-23-2003 8:14 PM


Hi, TL!
truthlover writes:
I was under the impression that 1 Corinthians was not under question as a whole nor part, as far as its Pauline authorship. Maybe I'm mistaken. Chapter 15 of that letter, however, mentions the three days,...and the appearance to the apostles and crowds.
Here's the passage you mention:
1 Cor 15:3-8 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
While there is no strong evidence one way or the other, this is likely a Christian insertion. One piece of evidence for this is that Bishop Irenaeus, despite his familiarity with 1 Corinthians, never mentions the passage in his defense against charges by the Marcion church that the resurrected Jesus had never been observed by any but Paul. The only explanation is that this passage was not present in the copy of 1 Corinthians available to the bishop.
Oh, the ascension is mentioned specifically in Ephesians 4:8-10; I think another pretty well-accepted writing of Paul.
This passage simply assumes an ascension, and if you read on through the rest of the passage Paul's meaning becomes increasingly tangled as he says ascension also means descension and more.
By ascension I was referring to the witnessed ascension described in Luke. Paul seems completely unaware of it.
While it can be argued that Paul's purpose in writing his letters was not to relate the story of Jesus nor even to communicate specific information about Jesus's ministry, it is too amazing to believe that he could have so thoroughly avoided mention of any of Jesus's sayings or acts had he been aware of them. The only explanation is that he was unaware of most of what is described in the gospels, because what appears there is a later construction.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by truthlover, posted 07-23-2003 8:14 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by truthlover, posted 07-24-2003 12:51 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 34 of 91 (47318)
07-24-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Theologian63
07-24-2003 2:37 PM


Re: Ignorance Abounds
Hi Theo! Welcome aboard!
Theologian63 writes:
Paul DID know Jesus. Who do you think talked to him on the road to Damascus? Later, he was trained by Jesus in the wilderness. "Ye do err not knowing the scriptures."
You didn't quote any passage from me, so I can't imagine what you're replying to. Did you perhaps misread where I said, "Paul never knew the *living* Jesus"?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Theologian63, posted 07-24-2003 2:37 PM Theologian63 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Souljah1, posted 07-24-2003 7:23 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 38 of 91 (47352)
07-24-2003 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by truthlover
07-24-2003 12:51 PM


Hi, TL!
I was incorrect to say that Paul didn't know about rising on the third third. And I garbled the allegations of the Marcionites - you're correct that they were alleging that only Paul knew the truth of the resurrection, not that only Paul had witnessed the resurrected Jesus. But Paul didn't know about the ascension, nor the appearances to the crowds in Jerusalem, to James, and to the apostles.
It is the passage you found in Against Heresies that tells us that Irenaeus was well aware of the passage from 1 Corinthians. Irenaeus quotes this part:
1 Cor 15:3-4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.
And there he stops. He never cites the following portion:
1 Cor 15:5-8 ...and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
You argue that Irenaeus is referring to the above passage when he says this:
Against Heresies 3:13:1 And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection, he says in continuation, "But whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed," acknowledging as one and the same, the preaching of all those who saw God after the resurrection from the dead.
But this can't be referring to Corinthians 15:5-8, because the reference is to seeing God, not Jesus, after the resurrection. And had Ireneus been aware of this passage he would have used it to great effect in answering the Marcionites charge.
But even if the supposed later interpolation is accepted as reliable, the epistles of Paul are still notable for their nearly complete lack of information about the living Jesus, who was a supposed contemporary of Paul. Paul presumably would have talked and exchanged information about Jesus with those who knew him first hand, like Peter and James, so how could he write so many letters without expressing anything about the life of Jesus? The answer that I arrive at is that Paul knew nothing of the living Jesus because Jesus had died at least a century before Paul had his vision on the road to Damascus.
It is only with the much later gospels that Jesus's life is described, and the obvious suspicion is that the stories were developed in and by devout Christian communities of the Jewish diaspora.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by truthlover, posted 07-24-2003 12:51 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by truthlover, posted 07-24-2003 11:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 40 of 91 (47391)
07-25-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by truthlover
07-24-2003 11:39 PM


TL writes:
Yeah, it seems to me that "when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection," is a clear reference to 1 Cor 15:5-8, because the "continuation" he gives is 1 Cor 15:11. Irenaeus is late enough that using God and Jesus interchangeably is not too surprising.
Well, perhaps, but the footnote to usage of the word "God" says:
222 All the previous editors accept the reading Deum without remark, but Harvey argues that it must be regarded as a mistake for Dominum. He scarcely seems, however, to give sufficient weight to the quotation which immediately follows.
In other words, you're not alone in your interpretation, but neither are you amongst a large number. At any rate, the evidence either way seems so thin that I can't see how either of us could insist on our own interpretation. I find the intertwining inconsistencies of the NT and other early Christian writings to be a vast and likely irresolvable puzzle. There is so much written that one can always find numerous details supporting any position.
What primarily persuades me is a very small amount of evidence, the complete lack of any contemporaneous record of Jesus. He made a far greater hubbub than John the Baptist in early 1st century Palestine, but no contemporaneous record nor reference to one survives. The facts of Jesus's life seem to spring out of the gospels spun from whole cloth.
There are, of course, other possibilities. For instance, there could have been contemporaneous accounts, but they may have contained information inconvenient for the early Christian church and so have not survived due to active weeding out by the church itself. In fact, the existence of such documents might explain some of the puzzling accounts in the Bible. For example, in Matthew Jesus says that the law will not weaken one iota until all is fulfilled, and one reason for its presence could be that Jesus was actually recorded somewhere as saying just that. So while I can accept the existence of problematic accounts (for the early church), I can't accept the possibility that contemporaneous accounts broadly supportive of the gospel accounts would not have survived.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by truthlover, posted 07-24-2003 11:39 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2003 9:16 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 42 by truthlover, posted 07-25-2003 9:24 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 43 of 91 (47475)
07-25-2003 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by truthlover
07-25-2003 9:24 AM


TL writes:
I don't know that this applies much. Previous editors accept the reading Deum, which is God, without remark. Harvey wants to change it back to Dominum, or Lord, so that Irenaeus isn't found calling Jesus God. That's probably important to all the theologians that are debating the Trinity, but I don't see how it has any application at all to whether or not Irenaeus was quoting 1 Cor 15:5-8.
Okay, I guess we disagree. This does not seem to me an important issue, and so I'm going to move on. If you feel differently and believe this should be addressed then let me know and I'll respond.
Further, if he's not referring to that passage, then what is he referring to when he says Paul recounted those who saw God after the resurrection? Surely Paul didn't recount a list of people who saw anything at all after the resurrection other than in 1 Cor 15, did he?
If you're asking me to offer and support a strong opinion I don't think I can do that. I think I'm already on record as stating that I find the mileau of 1st century Christian writings very inconsistent. Valid arguments can be offered in support of any number of different opinions. It is only when you consider the writing as a whole and note the paucity of information about the living Jesus that the incongruity of it becomes so apparent.
About the part you found confusing, sorry I wasn't more clear. I think you got it right, though. I can believe that 1st century accounts of Jesus's life that were odds with where the church found itself in later centuries might not have survived. And if they actually existed then it might explain some of the more puzzling passages in the gospels. For example, why would Matthew quote Jesus as saying that the law wouldn't weaken one iota (eg, dietary laws) when Paul was so clear that the old law no longer applied (eg, circumcision) unless Matthew had a source, no longer extant, that quoted Jesus saying precisely that? In other words, puzzling passages like this one can be considered indirect evidence of 1st century writings that did not survive.
What I find very difficult to believe is that 1st century accounts of Jesus's life largely congruent with the gospels would not have survived had they existed. They would have been too incredibly important to the early church to have somehow become lost.
How much contemporaneous record is there of John the Baptist? Is he mentioned by a contemporary more than once?
You keep catching me in errors. I shouldn't have used the word contemporaneous. The earliest accounts of Jesus and John the Baptist are from the gospels and Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. Leaving the gospels aside as biased Christian accounts, John the Bapist receives a long and detailed treatment from Josephus, while Jesus rates two scarce mentions widely believed to be later Christian interpolations. How does it make any sense that Josephus knew so much about John and probably nothing about Jesus, unless Jesus didn't live in the 1st century, if at all? And I should mention the possibility raised by PaulK, that Jesus lived in the 1st century but was far more obscure than the gospels make him out to be. In either case, the gospels must be fictions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by truthlover, posted 07-25-2003 9:24 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 44 of 91 (47524)
07-26-2003 2:32 PM


In order to facilitate the discussion (more truthfully, to somehow forestall a continuance of my string of errors - I blame truthlover for bringing these errors to light - if my recollection is correct, truthlover at one point wanted to change his ID, but I'm sure everyone would agree this would be a mistake ), I have gone through the Pauline epistles that are widely agreed genuine and extracted everything they contain regarding Jesus's life and death. The relevant epistles are:
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
1 Thessalonians
Galations
Following is a list of what Paul knew about Jesus's life and death as revealed in the above epistles. It is important to keep in mind that this list is not just a brief summary, not just a mere encapsulation of points on which Paul expounded at greater length. For the most part, this list provides all the information Paul provided. For example, the point that says, "He had brothers" provides all the information provided by Paul in 1 Cor 9:5: ...the brothers of the Lord.... Also, this list accepts everything Paul says at face value and disputes nothing:
  1. He was the Son of God. (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 8:3, 2 Cor 5:16, Gal 4:4)
  2. He was a descendant of David by way of the flesh. (Rom 1:3-4, Gal 4:4)
  3. He was rich. (2 Cor 8:9)
  4. He was meek and gentle. (2 Cor 10:1)
  5. He had brothers. (1 Cor 9:5)
  6. He had a brother James. (Gal 1:19)
  7. He was a preacher. (Rom 16:25)
  8. He had apostles. (1 Cor 9:5)
  9. Cephas was not an apostle. (1 Cor 9:5)
  10. He ministered to the Gentiles. (Rom 15:8)
  11. He suffered. (Rom 8:17, Rom 15:3, 2 Cor 1:5)
  12. He was betrayed. (1 Cor 11:23-26)
  13. There was a supper the night of the betrayal in which Paul quotes Jesus providing the instructions behind the eucharist. (1 Cor 11:23-26)
  14. He was crucified on the cross. (1 Cor 1:17, 1 Cor 1:23, 1 Cor 2:2, Gal 2:20, Gal 6:12, Gal 6:14)
  15. He was killed by the Jews. (1 Thes 2:14-15)
  16. He died for our sins. (Rom 14:15, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Thes 4:14)
  17. He was buried. (1 Cor 15:3-8)
  18. He was raised from the dead. (Rom 6:4, Rom 6:9, Rom 7:4, Rom 8:11, Rom 8:34, Rom 14:9, 1 Cor 6:14, 1 Cor 15:20, 2 Cor 4:14, 1 Thes 1:10, 1 Thes 4:14)
  19. He rose on the third day, appearing to Cephas, the twelve, 500, James and finally Paul. (1 Cor 15:3-8)
  20. He is at the right hand of God. (Rom 8:34)
Feedback, corrections, additions, etc, are all welcome.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by truthlover, posted 08-10-2003 8:52 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 48 of 91 (49741)
08-10-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by truthlover
08-10-2003 8:52 AM


truthlover writes:
As far as I can tell from surfing the web, Josephus has about three paragraphs broken up in two places on John the Baptist. That's a far cry from what the web site implies...
Are you talking about this site that you mentioned at the top of your message:
If so, it doesn't look familiar, I don't think I've seen it before.
Josephus places John the Baptist in a historical context and makes him a part of events. An important part, in fact, since he was apparently crucial in arousing Jewish resentment of Herod's actions. Josephus's passage about John the Baptist occurs in book 18, chapter 5 of Antiquities. Here is the relevant portion:
2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.
But the degree to which the details and authenticity of the Josephus references to John the Baptist exceed those for Jesus is a mere supporting point to the thesis that Jesus was not an actual figure of 1st century Palestine.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by truthlover, posted 08-10-2003 8:52 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024