The Existence of Jesus Christ

quote:

---

The truth is the vast majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you.

---

Would you take a few moments to substantiate this truth and then suggest what arguments held by these scholars should be considered compelling?

quote:

---

The truth is the vast majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you.

---

Again, randman, could you substantiate this truth and share the argument you find compelling?

quote:

---

Do you ever talk with some of these scholars? Do you regularly read their works?

---

Instead of rhetorical put-downs, wouldn't it be more effected to divulge the scholars with whom you have conversed, and what evidence you have read about?

quote:

---

Just a teacher, just a rabbi, blah blah, there were dozens of them in Israel/Palestine at the time, and only one fired up his followers enough to believe in his resurrection enough to go all the way to martyrdom for the belief."

---

But there is no evidence that a Jesus "fired up his followers" at all. There is, however, some evidence of an increasingly Gentile/Hellenist mission accepting a Pauline resurrection story, along with some evidence that the Jerusalem cult rejected Paul's apostasy.

quote:

---

How about your side goes first since I was responding to your side's unsubtantiated claim. I wrote: ...

---

I understand what you wrote. I referrenced what you wrote. I also asked you to substantiate what you wrote. If you choose to make claims that you're unable and unwilling to substantiate, that is entirely up to you. I had hoped, however, that you would have real content to offer. I'm sorry if my request seemed out of line.This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-28-2005 03:47 PMThis message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-28-2005 03:48 PM

quote:

---

Deut.32.8, but wasn't that his point, namely that Jesus or someone else did not fire up his followers to martyrdom, but that the truth of Jesus' life and resurrection did?

---

Martyrdom is not unique to Christianity. People die for all kinds of things, including imagined Gods.

quote:

---

On the subject of Paul, well we have one guy here claiming he probably didn't even exist, and seemed to suggest he thinks most new Testament scholars think that.

---

And that clearly and, perhap, understandably upsets you. Yet are you not doing exactly the same thing? You are essentially claiming that the majority of New Testament scholars agree with you based on compelling evidence, but you steadfastedly refuse to support any aspect of that claim.

quote:

---

One claims most think Jesus never existed, and then another might claim, Jesus was just a great Rabbi, etc,...and it all looks to me like grasping at straws and very, very poor scholarship.

---

On the contrary, it seems to me that the only substantive scholarship provided was provided by the person using the name "Iasion". I would not say that she or he has convinced me, but you must understand, and deal with, the fact that it is you who are demonstrating an apparent poverty of scholarship and argumentation.So, again, who is this scholarly majority, what are their arguments, and how might we confirm that information.This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-28-2005 04:06 PM

quote:

---

You don't consider my comments on the use of the term "the son of man" in the gospels as "real content"?

---

To be honest, not at all ...You wrote:

quote:

---

By the way, one strong piece of evidence for the gospel accounts of Jesus' sayings being accurate and dated for the time he lived is the use in the gospels of the term "son of man." I once read a brilliant work on the subject of the term "the son of man" in the apocryphaphal literature and it's use up to the time of Jesus. I don't have the scholars name handy, a bright German scholar working with original sources who incidentally did not accept the Bible as inerrant but nevertheless commanded the respect of a fundamentalist scholar and seminary professor who recommended the book to me.

---

I would really suggest that you and your brilliant unamed German take a few moments to read Daniel 7. So, for example, bible.org notes ...

quote:

---

This text is probably the main OT background for Jesus’ use of the term son of man. In both Jewish and Christian circles the reference in the Book of Daniel has traditionally been understood to refer to an individual, usually in a messianic sense. Many modern scholars, however, understand the reference to have a corporate identity. In this view, the son of man is to be equated with the holy ones (vv. 18, 21, 22, 25) or the people of the holy ones (v. 27) and understood as a reference to the Jewish people. Others understand Daniel’s reference to be to the angel Michael.

---

Referrence to "the son of man" can easily be explained as a thinly veiled attempt to reverse engineer prophesy, much as referrences to Isaiah 7:14. Your German "scholar" seems to me grossly incompetent.

quote:

---

Now, you are just being dishonest.

---

I am neither impressed nor interested in pathetic personal attacks. If you can substantiate your claims, please do so. If not, that fact will speak for itself.

quote:

---

Deut., if you want to believe that, that's fine. I've really got no use for talking with someone who is not serious about truth.

---

Your childish ad hominems are getting tiresome ...

Iasion, I'd be curious to hear your views of the Jerusalem church. Specifically, if you view it as fictive, what was the purpose of the elaborative fiction. Conversely, if you view it as historical, would you suggest why the default inference would not be that it evolved around some charismatic cult leader - or, if you accept this as a reasonable inference, why we should not accept Yeshu'a as that leaders name. Thanks.

quote:

---

I would agree that Acts is mostly mythical, ...

---

Agree with whom?

quote:

---

But, I'd say Paul existed, and almost certainly James and Peter too.

---

And would you likewise agree that the - let's call it tension - between Paul and the Jerusalem cult was likewise historical, with Paul insisting on legitimacy despite his dubious backgroung, Gentile mission, and separation from the Jerusalem center?

quote:

---

I see the first Jesus as originally inspired by the dying and rising son of god figure, re-interpreted as the Son-Of-God mediator figure - the being that stood between God and Man.

---

I understand that, and I have no trouble viewing Christianity as a Pauline invention. What I asked, however, was your views on the Jerusalem cult. I would thing that the historicity of this cult and, given cult dynamics, the historicity of an initial cult leader, would be good candidates for IBE. Conversely, arguing against historicity impresses me as dogma-driven speculation with no redeeming quality, somewhat reminiscent of Christian apologetics.Along these lines I note that Kirby, in his discussion of mythicist G.A. Wells, writes: In rejecting this minimal accommodation to an historical Yeshu'a are you not just being overly difficult?This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-29-2005 12:46 AM

quote:

---

Deut. 32.8, I found your post to be rather interesting.

---

Having characterised me as dishonest and unserious, I can only take your newfound interest as an instance of simple opportunism, a trait that I find no more compelling than sloppy scholarship, evasion, and ad hominem.This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-29-2005 10:36 AM

Iasion, as in the past, I appreciate your synopsis. Would you be willing to read, consider, and respond to post #59?

Iasion,Thank you for responding.

quote:

---

Its not clear to me exactly what the real origin was - yet it does seem to be based on a split between -
* Jerusalem / Jewish
* elsewhere / gentile.

---

Presumably so. But I am more interested in your views concerning the origins of the Jerusalem cult. Why would you acknowledge its historicity yet exclude the possibiity of a cult leader named Yeshu'a bar Yosef? In fact, I previously noted: to which you respond: "Yes, that is a good point - I think the tension is best seen as historical." ... and then proceed to ignore most of the point.As for your comment:

quote:

---

The Gospel legends appeared late 1st century - the legendary development phase reaches right back to the Tanakh, and brackets the Maccabean writings, Philo, the Stoics etc.

---

This seems less than forthcoming. You may reject 'Q' and an early date for the Passion narrative and the Gospel of Thomas, but many would place these core elements mid-1st century if not earlier. Furthermore, if you acknowledge a real history underlying the tensions between the Jewish and Gentile mission, those tensions come in the context of a relationship. and that would seem to imply areas of commonality as well as disageement. If the Jerusalem cult had nothing close to a Jesus tradition, what was the basis of Paul's relationship with them. Again, is not the most reasonable inference that there was, indeed, a Torah observant Yeshu'a bar Yosef, later Hellenized and Christianized by Paul and those who followed?

quote:

---

I think it started as an initiatory cult, focussed on spiritual experiences of something they called "Iesous Christos".

---

And why would you think this? Why would an apparently Torah observant cult, presumably operating within the synagogue structure of the time (i.e., before the malediction/expulsion) choose to call the focus of their experience "Iesous Christos"?

quote:

---

Let's see -
I posted pages of detailed evidence and argument,
you ignore the vast majority of it,
then you call my posts "dogma-drive speculation".
Gee thanks. Way to engender polite discourse.

---

You're quite correct. My comment was poorly worded and I apologise. At the same time, I've read your evidence more than once in the past, and my intent was certainly not to ignore it. I am simply concerned that this evidence may be reducible to a well researched argument from absence. My comments here are to suggest that the Jerusalem cult was a piece of (admittedly inconclusive) circumstantial evidence that you had not adequately addressed.

quote:

---

Yes, I agree a historical cult leader Yeshua is a POSSIBLE candidate.
But, No, having investigated the evidence, I do not believe there is room for such a figure - he is completely missing from Paul and the other 1st century writings.

---

Have you not just said that it's 'POSSIBLE' yet deemed not possible? As for being absent from 1st century writings, why would that suggest, much less insure, that "there is no room for such a figure". Paul's Gentile mission was clearly focused on a myth in progress. As for 2nd Temple Jews, one would hardly expect a literary legacy. What do we have from or about the Galilean, the Samaritan, the Egyptian, Hanina ben Dosa or Honi the Circle-Drawer, and are these references any less vulnerable to the type of arguments you've raised above?

quote:

---

So, your argument here seems to be about there being both :
a) tension, disagreement, and
b) commonality, shared views
That the COMMONALITY must have been Yeshua - a historical figure.

---

"Must have been"? And where have I said this. Iasion? I merely point out that an historical Yeshu'a seems to me a more reasonable inference, while ...

quote:

---

My argument is that the commonality is they all shared the same initiation in Iesous Christos

---

... impresses me as a less satisfying (or, perhaps, more forced) presumption. What is the foundation of this theory of a Jewish initiation cult committed to Kashrut, not particularly excited about fraternizing with non-Jews, yet possessing some Greek-titled Gnostic focus? And what are we to make of the persistent Ebionites and 'Judaizers'? Finally, if you acknowledge the viability of "Q", where in this early tradition do we find evidence of an initiation cult divorced from a human cult leader?

quote:

---

Where is the human Jesus in Paul? Or in any 1st century writing?

---

Iasion, at issue is not the absense of a human Jesus in Paul or the absense of 1st century writings. At issue is the probity of that absence given the existence of a Torah-observant Jerusalem sect and a mid-1st century sayings tradition. You have suggested one story to explain what we see. People such as Crossan, Mack and Vermes have offered another. Both are, in my opinion, necessarily speculative, but I continue to feel that yours is more strained, more of an apologetic, i.e., a consequence of your position rather than a basis for it.I am in no way a committed historicist, nor am I an expert on 2nd Temple Judaism. I would very much appreciate any elaboration on the reasoning behind positing a Gnostic Jerusalem initiation cult focused on "something they called Iesous Christos'", and the evidence upon which that reasoning is based.This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-30-2005 11:10 AMThis message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-30-2005 11:13 AM

quote:

---

You are making several invalid assumptions. First of all, the Temple based Judaism was not the only one. There was the rabbitical based version, which became dominate when the temple was destroyed by the Romans.

---

Thank you for sharing, but you presume too much while having embarrassingly little understanding of my comments.

quote:

---

I have appreciated your knowledgable comments and questions, perhaps you would like to expound your ideas a bit more?

---

And I yours.Thank you for your extensive comments. I'll not be able to adequately respond for a week or two (long trip, grandkids, Bar Mitzvah, etc.) and I didn't want you to think that I had overlooked or ignored your post.For now, let me just say that I see little in 'Q' or Acts to suggest anything other than Torah observant Jews. Put somewhat differently, I see little of Paul in 'Q'.Thanks again.