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

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

I see that you are eluding the my strong argument for Jesus descending already adult, in Paul.

I addressed that in one of my previous post.

Hebrews 5:7, “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from”, shows that the only action made by Jesus “during the days of the his flesh”, was to suffer and to die.

Days can add up to years. And the author did not say that were the only actions of Jesus during his lifetime.
And the same author wrote:
Heb 7:14 "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."
More about the human Jesus in 'Hebrews': http://historical-jesus.info/40.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

If, in absence of the Epistles, we should apply the Criterion of Embarrassment on the Acts of Apostles, precisely on all their interested emphasis that Paul was added only later to the movement and was a mere obedient follower of Peter, then we should infer the contrary: that the embarrassing fact was that Paul knew the historical Jesus (even better than Peter) but, for spirit of rivalry by the proto-catholics, he was relegated to not know him at all, if not by revelation.

Now, the genuine Epistles confirm us that Paul knew very well, even more than Peter (!), the Jesus. Only that this Jesus was not a historical one.

So if the proto-catholics preserved the genuine Epistles, then it was because the Epistles can still do the same point of Acts: Paul didn't know the historical Jesus, but only the his phantom, differently from Peter and the 12

I can see a lot of speculations here, and some unfounded assumptions. You sure make things very complicated in your effort to justify your totally mythical Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

To know is to classify. If you can't classify Jesus in some class of reference, then you are simply confessing the your ignorance about who is really Jesus.

I do not see why you should insist about having me to put Jesus in some class of reference.
However I see a lot of similarities with Gautama (later called Buddha = the enlightened) and the development of Buddhism.
As for Jesus, his life was greatly embellished in much later texts (some conflicting which others on some points). He never wrote anything. He seems to be a philosopher more than anything else, not the wittingly creator of a new religion. He accepted the main religion of his days and background: Vedic Brahminism. He was/is thought to experience eternal afterlife.
Much later, he was/is considered a god and worship as such, within a new religion with several variations.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

Because the only thing made by Jesus ''in the flesh'' was to be crucified. Period.

Just because Paul stressed Christ crucified, that does not mean that was the only thing happening in Jesus' life.

If I say that this is a catholic anti-marcionite interpolation, then I don't mean in this way to imply that, if genuine, the only interpretation of the passage can be only historicist. If the being davidic is a mere exaltation (and corollary) of the being Christ - i.e., something that is made without second intentions or goals (as can be the case if the intention is to confute Marcion) , then the historical Paul could very well exalt candidly the his Christ by calling him ''davidic''. It is not still euhemerization per se, but merely a mere title that sounded apt for the Christ, even if for a celestial Christ.

Another complicated explanation. A celestial Christ does not have to be a Jew, nor a descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David & Israelites, from the tribe of Judah, and born of a woman.

The flesh that is meant is the carnal lineage, here. But I can conclude so because I know that Paul lived an entire life (as opposed to only a short episode of it) to be descendant from Abraham. I don't know in advance that Jesus lived an entire life. I know that he was ''in the flesh'' only the necessary time to be crucified. Period. Hebrews talks only about ''the days of the his flesh''. "Days" are not months, not even years. In all that short period, Jesus suffered only. Therefore "during the days of the his flesh", Jesus could be only on the cross.

Descendant of Abraham starts their life as a baby, from a woman (and with semen from a man). Why Jesus' earthly origin should be different from Paul, who claimed to be also a descendant of Abraham?
Because Paul did not describe the life of Jesus before his crucifixion does not mean Jesus (in the flesh) was alive only a few days.

The Tertullian's silence about that construct, in the his polemic against Marcion, is strong. If you have a gun in the your hands, you use it to defend you from a mortal enemy. Or not?

Another argument from silence. Furthermore Tertullian commented only from the Marcionite gospel & epistles. Knowing about Marcion's preaching, it is rather certain any allusion to the humanity of Jesus through birth from human parents was not part of the Marcionite corpus. So the silence. But we have also from Marcion's gospel:
8:19 missing 8:20 Some people told him, “Your mother and your brothers stand outside, desiring to see you.” 21 (Jesus declaring) Who is my mother and who are my brothers except these who hear my words and do them?
It's very hard to argue that mother (standing outside) is a Jesus' follower because "mother" indicating a mature female follower is very very unlikely. Rather she is better understood as the blood mother of Jesus as in GLuke (where the pericope, with verse 19, makes a lot of sense: Jesus' family want to see Jesus. But being not among his followers, Jesus disowns them and replace them by followers).
Note: that passage by Marcion reveals that he truncated something from GLuke. Certainly this awkward two verses could not have been written by an earlier original author. (Hello Ben Smith!)

That is an interpolation in Josephus. If it was not an interpolation, then it reflects simply the fact that James the Pillar was named ''my Brother'' by the Risen Christ (as it is attested in an apocryphal gospel). And in the same time, ''the Lord'' was already euhemerized by the time Josephus wrote. So do 2 + 2.

Oh, you invoke an apocryphal gospel in your defense! Again I see here speculations.

That is an interpolation. Please read here.

It's far from being certain. Ben Smith could not decide. These "brothers of the Lord" appears in Origen's writings and even in a papyrus (P46).
And if "brothers of the Lord" was not in 1 Corinthians, why would "Mark" invent these brothers, if not known from former testimonies.

No, it is not. Jesus emptied himself as an act of deliberate obedience. You have not more that deliberate obedience by Jesus if he ceases to be an adult and becomes a mere baby (notoriously, someone who is not able to decide alone).

The hymn in Philippians does not say Jesus appears as an adult. The deliberate act of obedience does not have to be the only thing during the lifetime of Jesus.

from the hymn to Philippians. He assumes the appearance of a servant, not of a child. A child can't serve, an adult can.

Even servant starts their life as a baby.
Just like: he assumed the appearance of a wealthy man. That does not mean the life of that man started only when he showed himself in the appearance of a wealthy man.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

to Giuseppe,

Personally, I think that if the historical Paul defined Jesus as davidic, then Paul was judaizing a Gnostic deity. That is the only way by which I can accept why Paul was so blatantly liar about Jesus, by calling him davidic.

As I said before, Jesus could not be proven or unproven about that Davidic lineage. I think Paul got that from Jewish Christians (King is a big thing in the Jewish Christian gospel according to Matthew). In Romans, he addressed Christians who included the Jewish kind. That's probably why he adopted that davidic thing then, to be in good grace with them, by accepting some belief dear to them.

definitely, it is false that Jesus, even if he existed, was davidic. So it can't be a evident lie to prove the historicity of a man, even if that lie assumes an earthly nature of the subject about which it is referred to.

It is equivalent, as lie, to call the Roman emperor ''son of Zeus'', et similia.

Emperor Caligula wanted to be known as the brother of Jupiter.

just as Hercules. So the patronimic alone can't prove historicity.

But if for Paul Jesus was not ''born by woman'', then I don't think that Paul defined Jesus as davidic.

??? There are other indications in Paul's epistles that Jesus was earthly human, besides "born of a woman", as I showed in previous posts.

earthly context doesn't mean virtually historical context.

For me, the genuine Paul is the Paul who placed the cruxificion in the lower heavens. No need of a davidic Messiah to do a similar effort. Ok, the epistles can be strongly interpolated. It is even not sure if Paul adored the creator god.

This is your opinion about the crucifixion in the lower heaven. But where is the evidence?

the evidence is that Jesus is said suffering "in the flesh" but the flesh is not referred to any historical or earthly context. This means that only the flesh of Jesus was the unique human item in a context where there are only demons around Jesus who are going to crucify him.

The evidence is this, for example.

For Paul, the davidic thing came not before his last letter and is never an important point in his Christology. And about god creator, Paul wrote:
1 co 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist ..."

Notice: Only one God, which in many parts of the epistles is identified as the God of the OT (and the Jews).

What proves in the your eyes that that passage is not an anti-marcionite interpolation? Why so much emphasis on the monotheism? Even a Tacitus didn't need the information that the Jews adored only a god.

The point is: why didn't the interpolators introduce historicist claims, apart ''born by woman, born under the Law' or mere claims of davidic lineage'?

But Paul indicated other "historicist" fact in his epistles, as I showed in previous posts.

You have not shown other "historicist" facts. Apart ''born by woman, born under the Law''.

Why are you so sure that interpolators were responsible for all the so-called claims?

I have said that these passages are problematic passages and can't be used to prove that Paul adored really the creator or not.

Why not more historicist items for Paul? because Jesus as an earthly Jew was totally accepted by Christians then. So why hammer that fact over and over again?

for the Christian Marcion Jesus was not an earthly Jew, at least not in the his essentia. So ''born by woman, born under the Law'' is an example of "hammering that fact over and over again".

The best answer is that they knew that Paul hallucinated Jesus, and they wanted to preserve the thing.

Speculations based on speculations. So Paul's converts knew Paul was hallucinating about an earthly human Jesus and wanted to preserve that. That's very far-fetched. And you call that "your best answer".

Insofar Paul hallucinated only the Jesus, he is an useful servant and friend of a catholic Peter who knew the HJ. This is because a mythicist Paul was a remembered Paul.

[Giuseppe]

to Giuseppe,

Because the only thing made by Jesus ''in the flesh'' was to be crucified. Period.

Just because Paul stressed Christ crucified, that does not mean that was the only thing happening in Jesus' life.

If I say that this is a catholic anti-marcionite interpolation, then I don't mean in this way to imply that, if genuine, the only interpretation of the passage can be only historicist. If the being davidic is a mere exaltation (and corollary) of the being Christ - i.e., something that is made without second intentions or goals (as can be the case if the intention is to confute Marcion) , then the historical Paul could very well exalt candidly the his Christ by calling him ''davidic''. It is not still euhemerization per se, but merely a mere title that sounded apt for the Christ, even if for a celestial Christ.

Another complicated explanation. A celestial Christ does not have to be a Jew, nor a descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David & Israelites, from the tribe of Judah, and born of a woman.

the presence of a evident LIE (being davidic) in that list of earthly OT traditional features of the Jewish Christ raises the doubt about the real function of that list. Was mere embrional pre-Gospel midrash from the scriptures? Or was a false Paul judaizing the genuine pauline Jesus?

The flesh that is meant is the carnal lineage, here. But I can conclude so because I know that Paul lived an entire life (as opposed to only a short episode of it) to be descendant from Abraham. I don't know in advance that Jesus lived an entire life. I know that he was ''in the flesh'' only the necessary time to be crucified. Period. Hebrews talks only about ''the days of the his flesh''. "Days" are not months, not even years. In all that short period, Jesus suffered only. Therefore "during the days of the his flesh", Jesus could be only on the cross.

Descendant of Abraham starts their life as a baby, from a woman (and with semen from a man). Why Jesus' earthly origin should be different from Paul, who claimed to be also a descendant of Abraham?

because we know that Paul lived more years. Jesus lived only the time necessary for the crucifixion. In the Ascension of Isaiah (without interpolations) he is not born on this earth.

But we have also from Marcion's gospel:
8:19 missing 8:20 Some people told him, “Your mother and your brothers stand outside, desiring to see you.” 21 (Jesus declaring) Who is my mother and who are my brothers except these who hear my words and do them?

the info about the presence of the his mother and brothers was a lie meant to make Jesus reveal the his true origin in the eyes of the his questioners. That was the marcionite interpretation of the episode. It takes the form of a typical temptation. So the family of Jesus was a real mirage in Mcn.

from the hymn to Philippians. He assumes the appearance of a servant, not of a child. A child can't serve, an adult can.

Even servant starts their life as a baby.

why didn't Paul say that Jesus became a mere child, as a lot of talmudists said about the future Messiah (that he would have appeared as a child before)? The interpolator of the Ascension of Isaiah introduced the birth as a child, not the real author.
You are introducing that starting as a baby in the case of Jesus. If Jesus became a servant then he became an adult. Why have you to introduce again and again things that are not in the text?

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

definitely, it is false that Jesus, even if he existed, was davidic. So it can't be a evident lie to prove the historicity of a man, even if that lie assumes an earthly nature of the subject about which it is referred to.

I do not know why you are making such a fuss about that Davidic thing. What would prevent Jesus, after his death, to be attributed ancestry from David, among all kind of other titles & attributes?
I suppose you made some complicated arguments somewhere but I am still confused about the reason for your position.

just as Hercules. So the patronimic alone can't prove historicity.

Anyway, Hercules is represented to have lived on earth. Furthermore, that Hercules might have been just an ancient strongman whose life story was greatly embellished and added with fiction. If it is the case, of course, the legends survived but any (boring) factual account of his life got forgotten and lost.
The same thing for Mythras: that might have started by a hermit cornering and then killing a rogue bull in rural Persia.
In the case of Attis, the story started by a man being born with no sexual organs, and, because being not attracted by women, worshiped some heavenly goddess. People, because of the peculiar gender of Attis, viewed him as "chosen" and accepted him as a priest for that goddess.
We have a series of ancient texts explaining Attis' origins and the evolution of legends about him. See http://historical-jesus.info/djp1.html and "find' on Attis.

earthly context doesn't mean virtually historical context.

In the case of Jesus, his earthly context could still be ascertained from contemporaries of Jesus and Paul. Let's say from James, Jesus' brother (a contemporary of Paul & Josephus) and other witnesses.
For Muhammad & Gautama (Buddha), any surviving account of their life were written many centuries after their deaths. But, as believed by most, they existed on earth.

the evidence is that Jesus is said suffering "in the flesh" but the flesh is not referred to any historical or earthly context. This means that only the flesh of Jesus was the unique human item in a context where there are only demons around Jesus who are going to crucify him.

Argument from silence. Why would you expect Paul to indicate Jesus suffering in the flesh on earth. If I report somebody suffered from fleshy wounds, do I have to say, that suffering was on earth?

What proves in the your eyes that that passage is not an anti-marcionite interpolation? Why so much emphasis on the monotheism? Even a Tacitus didn't need the information that the Jews adored only a god.

What prove it is an interpolation?
So much emphasis about monotheism? Because many other gods were worshiped in antiquity:
1 Co 8:5-6 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Anyway, Hercules is represented to have lived on earth. Furthermore, that Hercules might have been just an ancient strongman whose life story was greatly embellished and added with fiction. If it is the case, of course, the legends survived but any (boring) factual account of his life got forgotten and lost.
The same thing for Mythras: that might have started by a hermit cornering and then killing a rogue bull in rural Persia.
In the case of Attis, the story started by a man being born with no sexual organs, and, because being not attracted by women, worshiped some heavenly goddess. People, because of the peculiar gender of Attis, viewed him as "chosen" and accepted him as a priest for that goddess.

Robert Price said something of that kind about Jesus: he might have lived on earth. Who knows? But that is precisely the mythicist conclusion: to deny the probability of the historicity.


I see that you accept that in the Ascension of Isaiah Jesus descended as adult.


At any case, the crucifixion of Jesus was celestial, in Paul, since he says that Jesus was killed directly by demons. THe demons can kill directly an entity only in their archontic territory, not on the earth, where they can only move the humans to kill a person.


Paul says (somewhere in the epistle to Romans) that the Roman rulers are rulers by will of God. So they can't be hated as killers of Jesus. The possibility that they are innocent killers of Jesus (as moved by the demons behind them) is excluded a priori, since the Book of Revelation is strongly anti-Roman, and surely his ''John'' would have accused the Romans as deliberate killers of Jesus, if that was part of the original myth, but ''John'' doesn't say so.

[Giuseppe]

The problem is not if the Romans were involved or not. The problem for the historicists is that the Romans are never mentioned at all as killers of Jesus in Paul. Never. So how can the historicist read the epistles without Gospel lens, when de facto that is what he is doing, by talking of Romans as killers of Jesus in Paul.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

I see that you accept that in the Ascension of Isaiah Jesus descended as adult.

The AoI = the mythicist's gospel. In it the Beloved descends in the form of the angels through the 6 lower heavens, then in the form of an angel of the air below the firmament.
Actually, the AoI started as an entirely Jewish text. Then it was christianized slightly by a gnostic Christian interpolator, then a lot more by two different other gnostic Christian interpolators, etc.
I made a study of it here: http://historical-jesus.info/100.html
Extract of my conclusion: "It seems the original text was entirely Jewish and then slightly interpolated (at 9:13-14 & 16) by Docetic Christian(s). Then two interpolators (Docetic Christians themselves), separately, from their own copy, added more DIFFERENT additions/insertions, some of them overtly Christian in nature. These two resulting copies (witnessed by E & L1 and S & L2) were furthermore interpolated when new ones were made from them."
Certainly no historical stuff about Jesus, except repeats from the earlier Christian writings.

At any case, the crucifixion of Jesus was celestial, in Paul, since he says that Jesus was killed directly by demons. THe demons can kill directly an entity only in their archontic territory, not on the earth, where they can only move the humans to kill a person.

NO, Paul did not say that in 1 Co 2:8. 'archons' are to be translated as rulers or equivalent. 'archons' cannot be translated as demons.
The only time 'archons' can be identified in the Pauline epistles, they mean Roman authorities (Romans 13:3-6). See http://historical-jesus.info/68.html for details.
Furthermore Paul indicated Jesus lived and was sacrificed on earth among Jews in Romans Ro 11:26-27 & Ro 9:31-33. See explanations here: http://historical-jesus.info/19.html

Paul says (somewhere in the epistle to Romans) that the Roman rulers are rulers by will of God. So they can't be hated as killers of Jesus. The possibility that they are innocent killers of Jesus (as moved by the demons behind them) is excluded a priori, since the Book of Revelation is strongly anti-Roman, and surely his ''John'' would have accused the Romans as deliberate killers of Jesus, if that was part of the original myth, but ''John'' doesn't say so.

Very confusing statement. I can say that the apostles had to take in account that they were living in a Roman world. If they would accuse the Romans about killing their Christ, that would be very dangerous for their life. It is why Paul used 'archons' in 1 Co 2:8. Furthermore the Romans could be seen as the innocent "facilitators" of the Sacrifice and therefore not blamed for the Crucifixion.
For confirmation, we have to look in the gospels: crucifixions could only be inflicted by the Romans then, so they had to be involved in it. However the gospel authors, starting by "Mark" wrote everything they can to exonerate Pilate (=Romans) and instead have a Jewish mob indirectly sending Jesus to the Cross.
The author of Revelation is also very careful about not mentioning 'ROME' and Romans. For ROME, he had Babylon instead, even if it very clear Babylon stands for Rome.
Paul went event farther in writing Roman authorities should be obeyed and have tax paid to them.
Romans 13:3-6 NKJV "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing."

Cordially, Bernard