If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by John2 »

Giuseppe wrote:
Paul is silent about Jesus. The his silence about Jesus is so intrinsic to it, and any your presumed historicist proof text is neutralized by (or even better explained by) a mythicist interpretation of the same, that the only logical conclusion is that Jesus didn't exist.
While I gather there is a "mythicist" intepretation for it, for me Paul is clear enough about Jesus' humanity in 1 Cor. 15:20-21:
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.


I think in the big picture Paul just doesn't care about the human Jesus. As he puts it in 2 Cor. 5:16:
From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
I see this "Christ according to the flesh" as being the human Jesus and the one Paul says was proclaimed by Jewish Christian "super-apostles" in 2 Cor. 11:4-5:
For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily. I consider myself in no way inferior to those super-apostles.
And since I regard 1 Peter as being genuine, it clarifies for me what Jewish Christian "super apostles" preached about "Christ according to the flesh," like in 3:18:
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.
For me this all only works with a human Jesus, one who was thought by whoever to have been in one way or another God, Daniel's "son of man," isaiah's Suffering Servant, an angel, and/or whatever else, but a human Jesus at least too. As 1 Tim. 2:5 puts it (not that I think it's a genuine letter of Paul but I find it instructive), "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

John2 wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:40 am Giuseppe wrote:
Paul is silent about Jesus. The his silence about Jesus is so intrinsic to it, and any your presumed historicist proof text is neutralized by (or even better explained by) a mythicist interpretation of the same, that the only logical conclusion is that Jesus didn't exist.
While I gather there is a "mythicist" intepretation for it, for me Paul is clear enough about Jesus' humanity in 1 Cor. 15:20-21:
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
it is not clear here if Jesus was the first to know both death and resurrection, or if Adam died before him.
I think in the big picture Paul just doesn't care about the human Jesus. As he puts it in 2 Cor. 5:16:
From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
Christ according to flesh is Christ on the cross. Any Christian "perfect" knew him. Per the divine gnosis of 1 Cor 2:6-11 reserved only to them.
I see this "Christ according to the flesh" as being the human Jesus and the one Paul says was proclaimed by Jewish Christian "super-apostles" in 2 Cor. 11:4-5:
For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily. I consider myself in no way inferior to those super-apostles.
there is no evidence of the link between the flesh of the Christ and that rival Christ. There is no evidence that ignoring a carnal Christ = anathemize the carnal Christ. At least for Paul.

Bit the Gnostic separationists could do so (they cursed the man possessed by the divine Christ).
And since I regard 1 Peter as being genuine, it clarifies for me what Jewish Christian "super apostles" preached about "Christ according to the flesh," like in 3:18:
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.
I have no need of a genuine 1 Peter to claim that also Paul believed that the archangel suffered "in the flesh".
As 1 Tim. 2:5 puts it (not that I think it's a genuine letter of Paul but I find it instructive), "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus."
that raises the suspect about there being another rival god as supreme God.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
Paul is silent about Jesus.
NO, Paul is not silent about an earthly human Jesus:
When eyewitnesses were still alive, Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27).
your presumed historicist proof text is neutralized by (or even better explained by) a mythicist interpretation of the same, that the only logical conclusion is that Jesus didn't exist.

Oh really? Did you have a go at it? For the historicist proof texts (Paul's epistles), as far as I am concerned, all neutralizations and alternative interpretations by mythicists are very convoluted, complicated, ill-evidenced, remote, full of assumptions, and even at time illogical or absurd.
One who accepts the existence of HJ does not have to go through that.
The simplest explanation is the best. Actually, no (or very little) explanations are required about mention of an earthly human Jesus is Paul' epistles. Just to be understood as read.

So how how do you neutralize or interpret all this historicist evidence in the pauline epistles?
Why should you have the right to put the Gospel Jesus in the class of the apocalyptic prophets
I did not put the Gospel Jesus in any class. But I thought we were talking about the pauline epistles. Do not change the subject.
his short apparition in the place where he was crucified by the demons
Where did you read that? In the pauline epistles? elsewhere?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Secret Alias »

NO, Paul is not silent about an earthly human Jesus
Why don't you cite the Pastorals, the Acts of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles for more 'evidence' of Paul's views. There is no point continuing to have discussions about 'Paul' given the divide between those who see the Church as essentially evil (myself and others) and those who see it as not evil (you and many other others). You believe that the orthodox tradition preserved the authentic Pauline writings. Many of us don't. So what do we do about that? Shout at one another? Talk past one another? I don't know but there are good grounds for supposing the existing Pauline corpus was not original. Beyond that we're reduced to hitting one another over the head with rubber mallets.

I think it is unreasonable - no, idiotic - to assume that the orthodox church DIDN'T corrupt the canon. At the same time there is no other canon to speak of which survives. I don't know what to do to make this discussion meaningful.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

those who see the Church as essentially evil (myself and others) and those who see it as not evil (you and many other others).
I am an atheist. I do not see the Church as not evil. I think those who wrote the original texts and the interpolations of the NT (and other early Christian literature) were very dishonest people, just trying to make converts and/or keep them, in order to make a living out of them (Paul is in that category also).
I also think that today (and in the past) most "Christian" professionals (priests, pastors, preachers) are not even believers (and that may go all the way to the pope and other top leaders).
You believe that the orthodox tradition preserved the authentic Pauline writings.
That orthodox tradition did manipulate the original texts with editing (as combination of multiple epistles into one) and interpolations (most of them on very crucial points). I took great pain into demonstrating these editing and interpolations in my website. I also think if we would have the original texts, the deducted (from them) story of very early Christianity (and above all evolution of its beliefs) would be very damaging to Christian faith.
there are good grounds for supposing the existing Pauline corpus was not original
I agree to a degree: from the original, there were editing and interpolations. Furthermore the original Pauline corpus was added on by epistles falsely by Paul: Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians and the three Pastorals.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:43 pm When eyewitnesses were still alive, Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus ...
Hi Bernard. Those are mere assertions.

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:43 pm ... Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27).
"come of a woman, come under law" = the written to fulfil the law

"found in appearance as a man" does not mean he had been a man.

as a descendant of...Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3) = necessary to fulfil scripture (and the law).
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

Those are mere assertions.
The evidence is in the Pauline epistles (as stated earlier in my posts).
"come of a woman, come under law" = the written to fulfil the law
"come/made/become of a woman says just that. "come under law": as a Jew. Where does it say "the written to fulfil the law?
"found in appearance as a man" does not mean he had been a man.
However, that does not mean he was not a man on earth. Why the "appearance"? Because Paul preached Jesus was existent in heaven before his human life on earth. A heavenly entity was his normal form; as an earthly man, that was abnormal.
It's like reporting that "a man was found in appearance as a beggar at that party."
That's self explanatory: the man was not (or not likely) a beggar in his normal life.
But writing "a man was found as a beggar at that party" would be misleading: that would give the impression that man was a beggar in his normal life.
as a descendant of...Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3) = necessary to fulfil scripture (and the law).
But can that be said for someone who was not an earthly human?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:43 pm When eyewitnesses were still alive, Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus ...
MrMacSon wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:20 pm Hi Bernard. Those are mere assertions.
Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:09 pm The evidence is in the Pauline epistles ...
The Pauline epistles are narratives, and are only evidence of narratives. They do not substantiate the stories in them. They are largely reworked passages from the Hebrew Bible, the OT.

Early Doherty presented a case for Paul’s Christ being derived from OT scriptures: that the writings of the prophets provided narratives of events and people that were used by Paul. David Oliver Smith has noted three hundred eighty-two verses in Paul’s Epistles reference the OT, and, in those 382 vv., there are five hundred & forty-five citations to OT passages. It is clear that the OT was a major source for Paul’s gospel, especially Psalms, which Paul references ninety times, and Isaiah that are referenced eighty-four times in the Pauline epistles (Smith, David Oliver (2011) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (p. 26). Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers).

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:09 pm
"come of a woman, come under law" = the written to fulfil the law
"come/made/become of a woman" says just that.
Yes, it just says that. That's my point.

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:09 pm "come under law": as a Jew.
Yes

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:09 pm Where does it say "the written to fulfil the law?
I said it. To mean ''come under law', as a Jew', to narrate Jesus as a Jew.


Galatians 4:4 is based on Isaiah 9:6, 11.1, and 16:5.


Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:09 pm
"found in appearance as a man" does not mean he had been a man.
However, that does not mean he was not a man on earth.
It doesn't mean he was.

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:09 pm Why the "appearance"? Because Paul preached Jesus was existent in heaven before his [supposed] human life on earth. A heavenly entity was his normal form ...
Exactly.

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:09 pm ... as an earthly man, that was abnormal.
Yes, though they wanted the illusion that he had been an earthly man.


Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:09 pm
as a descendant of...Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3) = necessary to fulfil scripture (and the law).
But can that be said for [an entity] who was not an earthly human?
Yes, of course.


Being a "Descendant of David" — Rom 1:1–3 — is also based on Isaiah 11:1 and 16:5

.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to MrMacSon,
The Pauline epistles are narratives, and are only evidence of narratives. They do not substantiate the stories in them. They are largely reworked passages from the Hebrew Bible, the OT.
The (considered genuine) Pauline seven (canonical) epistles are not narratives like the gospels & Acts. They are letters addressed to Christians by a flawed individual on the fly, of many moods and in different circumstances, and for various audiences, about all kinds of local, general or theological/christological issues of the time. All of that in order to keep his converts or make new ones (as in the case for 'Romans').
Early Doherty presented a case for Paul’s Christ being derived from OT scriptures:
Sure Paul was very versed about the OT scriptures. So it's no surprise he was inspired by them in many passages when written his religious blah blah. But that does not take away the prior recent existence of an earthly human Jesus, which shows in his epistles.
Galatians 4:4 is based on Isaiah 9:6, 11.1, and 16:5.
So according to you, Paul would have extracted some elements from three OT verses and then combined then in order to get his Gal 4:4. Isn't it far-fetched?
I said it. To mean ''come under law', as a Jew', to narrate Jesus as a Jew.
Why narrate? The text tell me Paul knew Jesus was a Jew. That fact is also stated elsewhere in his epistles such as Romans 9:4-5. Where does a Jew live? on earth or somewhere else?
Yes, though they wanted the illusion that he had been an earthly man.
How do you know "they" (early Christians in Paul's time, I guess) wanted some illusion about an earthly Jesus? Nothing tell me that.
But can that be said for [an entity] who was not an earthly human?
Yes, of course
Can you cite examples where descendants of (believed or true) earthly humans were themselves not earthly humans (believed or true)? As for Jesus, his humanity was recent (and true) because he had a survivor brother that Paul met. That James is also corroborated in Josephus' Antiquities.
Being a "Descendant of David" — Rom 1:1–3 — is also based on Isaiah 11:1 and 16:5
However, anyone said to be a descendant of David "according to the flesh" has to be an earthly human.
I do not say Jesus was a true descendant of David (that could not be proven or unproven in ancient times or even now).
Yes a Christ was believed, by some Jews, having to be a descendant of David. And that's why Jesus got attributed that ancestor. But once again, he had to be an earthly human to get that attribute.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:43 pm to Giuseppe,
Paul is silent about Jesus.
NO, Paul is not silent about an earthly human Jesus:
When eyewitnesses were still alive, Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT)
just as Mithras comes from Persians. The Christ kata sarka is the crucified Christ. Not a lived Christ.
and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT)
anti-marcionite interpolation. Marcion despised the birth of Jesus: turpissimum Dei nativitas
(as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)),
anti-marcionite interpolation.
"found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3),
very strange to say about a man.
"the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)),
spiritual Brothers.
his short apparition in the place where he was crucified by the demons
Where did you read that? In the pauline epistles? elsewhere?
If Jesus "emptied himself", then he was already adult before the descending. Logical corollary.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply