Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

JoeWallack wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:14 pm

Just for the record ishcandor reads everything I write and I do not read anything that he/she/they/it write which is as it should be.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:38 pm
I find your filthy racist slurs appalling as I do your accusations of anti-semitism directed to anyone who presents facts largely not heard in the mainstream narrative and who dares to utter a word critical of a certain state's policies and actions. I see you are still spreading your racist smears against an entire people: https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula ... nt-1928946

I ask you, Joe, to drop all your continual barbs against my views on a state's policy, not only because they maliciously misrepresent and distort what I have actually written, but because they are irrelevant to a discussion of Christian origins.

I am sure you will feel better as will I if you leave your tribalist and racialist views at the door. And that includes removing links in your signature that direct readers to your gross distortions of what I have written.

Please Wallack.

PS It is iskander.

JoeWallack wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:20 am

The problem with Hurtado's supposed point that the Gospels show a trajectory from HJ to MJ (supernatural) is that, as CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) is wont to do, it ignores the Separationism of GMark. GMark is clearly Separationist (right KK?) so it shows that Jesus was (literally) not worth mentioning before he received God's Spirit. Likewise GMark shows that Jesus was not worth mentioning after God's spirit left. So, the original Gospel narrative really only describes MJ. Sounds to me like the original Gospel Jesus was all MJ. Then, all subsequent Gospels, which very much want HJ, use as a base, a Gospel which only has MJ, which is evidence that they had no other source for HJ.

I cannot understand that argument.
First, Jesus is mentioned before he gets the Holy Spirit. That is when he appears among the crowd surrounding John the Baptist and is baptized (according to GMark). Furthermore, he is said to be from a place which is not in heaven. So he had an earthly past, and, as told afterwards, with earthly/human mother and brothers.
Second, I don't see why someone who (allegedly) get the spirit and then would expel it before his death, cannot be historical as well, even if nothing is told about him after his death.
Furthermore, even if nothing is described about Jesus alive in heaven after bodily death, "Mark" has Jesus predicting his resurrection several times and a later reappearance in the clouds as the heavenly "son of man".

to robert j,

Response: There is no clear-cut evidence in Paul’s letters that Paul considered his Jesus Christ as a near contemporary.

The clear-cut evidence is in Gal 1:19.

Hurtado: “Paul ascribes to Jesus a human birth …”
Response: OK

Hurtado: “… a ministry among fellow Jews …”
Response: I’m not sure where that comes from, but not a problem.

Romans 15:8

Hurtado: “… an execution specifically by Roman crucifixion …”
Response: No, Paul does not specify a Roman-style execution.

Paul said Jesus was crucified, on a cross. Romans, in their empire, were the only ones allow to crucify people.

Hurtado: “… named/known siblings …”
Response: I’m not interested in debating this sticky and well-worn issue. “The Lord's brother” in Galatians 1:19 certainly could be a gloss, a marginal note that found its way into the text. But if we assume it original, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the ‘biological brother/or not’ debate. Similar arguments can be made for 1 Corinthians 9:5. I would acknowledge a tie on debate points, but not nearly enough in the context of Paul’s letters to swing this investigator to think these references are to biological brothers.

In view that Jesus is from a woman and is a descendant from male Jews, chance are he had siblings. Furthermore this is also stated in gMark (which has sisters also) and Josephus Ant. 20.20 (only for James).
I do not know what Paul should have said more to indicate blood brothers, if, at that time, Jesus having true brothers was already known by his audience.
Paul certainly did not think he had to prevent doubts from modern time mythicists.

Hurtado: “… other named individuals who were Jesus’ original companions (e.g., Kephas/Peter, John Zebedee).
Response: Paul did not name these individuals as companions of Jesus. And Paul did not identify his single mention of a “John” as “John Zebedee”.

Sure, you can blame Hurtado for that.

Cordially, Bernard

robert j wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:58 pm
Hurtado: “… other named individuals who were Jesus’ original companions (e.g., Kephas/Peter, John Zebedee)."

Response: Paul did not name these individuals as companions of Jesus. And Paul did not identify his single mention of a “John” as “John Zebedee”.

Hurtado has overplayed his hand with some inaccurate and exaggerated claims.

Yep, Hurtado has overplayed his hand with some inaccurate and exaggerated claims, as do many others.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:54 pm to robert j,

There is no clear-cut evidence in Paul’s letters that Paul considered his Jesus Christ as a near contemporary.

The clear-cut evidence is in Gal 1:19.

That's just the "brother of the Lord" issue. Hardly clear-cut, and one for which I said I'm not interested in getting involved in a debate again.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:54 pm

Hurtado: “… an execution specifically by Roman crucifixion …”
Response: No, Paul does not specify a Roman-style execution.

Paul said Jesus was crucified, on a cross. Romans, in their empire, were the only ones allow to crucify people.

I have two problems with your position here. First, the term Paul used was commonly used at the time for a stake, the term doesn't specify the stake as in the form of a cross.

Second, you are assuming Paul was writing about his Jesus Christ as having been staked/killed in the period of time in which the Romans controlled the Jewish homelands. Regardless of how you might try to make that argument, Paul does not clearly make that identification.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:54 pm
Furthermore this is also stated in gMark (which has sisters also) and Josephus Ant. 20.20 (only for James).
I do not know what Paul should have said more to indicate blood brothers, if at that time when Jesus having true brothers was already known by his audience.

If you think you can use such information from gMark (and Josephus) here --- well, I know you are familiar with the phrase "gospel colored glasses".

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:54 pm
I do not know what Paul should have said more to indicate blood brothers, if at that time when Jesus having true brothers was already known by his audience.

I don't know what he "should have said" either, but he certainly could have said a lot more. A big "if", it seems you are assuming Paul had told his congregations about Jesus having biological brothers still alive at the time. How could we know if he did or not beyond a couple of passages that are plagued by unresolved and valid differences of opinion?

I'm not sure you are making such an assumption, but one can't assume that Paul's congregations knew anything about a Jesus Christ before Paul came along.

Larry Hurtado's opening argument is just a compilation of logical fallacies. The claim that virtually every Scholars agree that Jesus existed is not evidence of his existence.

There is no historical or archaelogical evidence for a human Jesus anywhere--- only logical fallacies.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:54 pm Furthermore, he is said to be from a place which is not in heaven. So he had an earthly past, and, as told afterwards, with earthly/human mother and brothers.

Like Heracles who was said to have come from Thebes and travelled more extensively than the apostle Paul initiating colonies and cities all over the Mediterranean world. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that there was hardly an earthly place he wasn't from. He also had an earthly human mother, Alcmene, and a mortal human brother, Iphicles. Oh, yes, and like Jesus in the Gospel of Mark he was also declared to be a beloved son of a god.

Part of the problem (and even Carrier suffered from this in his book), is scholars wanting to retreat behind the trenches of textual criticism and assume that the texts of the third century with a few second century are near identical to the antecedent texts of the late first and early to mid 2nd century texts. Look at how hard they avoid seeing interpolations in Paul or anti-Marcionite responses in the gospels and pastorals. Any historical reconstruction based on that train wreck is highly dubious and that includes the mythicist position.

I think that people aren't open to all the possibilities that are out there and instead want to bash heads together as some sort of masculine fight ritual. Jesus could have been a historical figure he could also not have been a historical figure. I think if things were put forward with this sort of caution there would have been all these fights. Yes 'the other side' overstates the certainty of Jesus's existence. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:54 pm
Furthermore, he is said to be from a place which is not in heaven. So he had an earthly past, and, as told afterwards, with earthly/human mother and brothers.

Like Heracles who was said to have come from Thebes and travelled more extensively than the apostle Paul initiating colonies and cities all over the Mediterranean world. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that there was hardly an earthly place he wasn't from. He also had an earthly human mother, Alcmene, and a mortal human brother, Iphicles. Oh, yes, and like Jesus in the Gospel of Mark he was also declared to be a beloved son of a god.

I made that remark in order to show that Jesus is mentioned before he gets the Spirit after his baptism (according to gMark).
As for Herakles, I think he may have existed as a mycenaean strong man, whose exploits and traveling were greatly exaggerated (with some total fiction added) along the centuries.
Of course the legends subsisted, but nothing describing Herakles, as what he really was, did (because that was superseded by the more interesting legendary accounts).
Mythras (as someone who killed a dangerous rogue bull) and Attis (who was born with no sex/gender) might be also candidates to have existed as much lesser as with the legends accreted to them.

As for being declared "beloved son of god", that can happen to somebody totally mythical or totally human.

Cordially, Bernard

to robert j,

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:54 pm

Furthermore this is also stated in gMark (which has sisters also) and Josephus Ant. 20.20 (only for James).
I do not know what Paul should have said more to indicate blood brothers, if at that time when Jesus having true brothers was already known by his audience.

If you think you can use such information from gMark (and Josephus) here --- well, I know you are familiar with the phrase "gospel colored glasses".

What do you mean by "gospel colored glass"" Why would that influence me when reading "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" in Antiquities 20.20?
As for the reference of a "James" as brother of Jesus in gMark, I think the expression "gospel colored glasses" cannot apply.

I don't know what he "should have said" either, but he certainly could have said a lot more. A big "if", it seems you are assuming Paul had told his congregations about Jesus having biological brothers still alive at the time. How could we know if he did or not beyond a couple of passages that are plagued by unresolved and valid differences of opinion?

I'm not sure you are making such an assumption, but one can't assume that Paul's congregations knew anything about a Jesus Christ before Paul came along.

About the Corinthians having been introduced to a Jesus (according to worldly ways: not spiritual, mundane or temporal) that Paul wanted them to forget about, see:
http://historical-jesus.info/20.html

Cordially, Bernard