Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[ghost]

Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus as originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection in a supernatural realm.

http://www.mythology.us/ovid_metamorphoses_book_15.htm

Book XV:843-870 Ovid’s celebration of Augustus

He had barely finished, when gentle Venus stood in the midst of the senate, seen by no one, and took up the newly freed spirit of her Caesar from his body, and preventing it from vanishing into the air, carried it towards the glorious stars. As she carried it, she felt it glow and take fire, and loosed it from her breast: it climbed higher than the moon, and drawing behind it a fiery tail, shone as a star.

[neilgodfrey]

The bodily resurrection was invented some 40 to 50 years after Jesus' death. Even gMark initially did not have "met with his closest disciples". Therefore the so-called resurrection was first thought to be about the spirit of Jesus being saved in heaven. . . . .

A real man who never existed in history cannot die and (allegedly) resurrect.
So that man had to be fictitious. But was he? Not as described by Paul (see my initial post on this thread).

40 years after an event means, and we are told this so often by many poo-poohing the mythicst case, is easily time enough for eyewitnesses to still be around to trash the suggestion so that it would never fly.

What's this "(allegedly) resurrect"? No allegedly about it. The gospels and Paul say outright he was resurrected. It is the cornerstone of their faith. Your logic -- without the gratuitous qualifier -- means that their Jesus never existed.

[ghost]

What's this "(allegedly) resurrect"? No allegedly about it. The gospels and Paul say outright he was resurrected. It is the cornerstone of their faith. Your logic -- without the gratuitous qualifier -- means that their Jesus never existed.

That the resurrection is alleged doesn't mean he never existed. It just means the resurrection is made up.

[Bernard Muller]

What's this "(allegedly) resurrect"? No allegedly about it. The gospels and Paul say outright he was resurrected. It is the cornerstone of their faith. Your logic -- without the gratuitous qualifier -- means that their Jesus never existed.

I said "allegedly" because I do not agree that Jesus resurrected. Of course I do not deny that Paul had Jesus resurrected.

40 years after an event means, and we are told this so often by many poo-poohing the mythicst case, is easily time enough for eyewitnesses to still be around to trash the suggestion so that it would never fly.

I do not think that eyewitnesses were still around 40 years after. If some of them were still alive, and after the destruction of Jerusalem, I do not see why they would, in their old age, proclaim gMark is trash (if they knew about it). And "Mark" (or early interpolator) made sure that the eyewitnesses did not know about the empty tomb, the "proof" of Jesus' resurrection in gMark.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

I said "allegedly" because I do not agree that Jesus resurrected. Of course I do not deny that Paul had Jesus resurrected.

Then you are not talking about Paul's Jesus at all. You have created a rationalization of Paul's Jesus and are using that as the basis for your model.

[neilgodfrey]

Any debate over the historicity or ahistoricity of the gospel Jesus figure that holds that "as evidence, the gospels simply make no difference to the equation" is shooting itself in the foot.

Of course the gospels per se make no difference to either side of the debate. Everyone -- on both sides of the mythicist-historicist question -- knows they gospels present a mythical Jesus, a Christ of faith. The historical task is to explore the origins of the myth and the origins of the gospels.

[MrMacSon]

^ The historical task is to explore the origins of the myth and the origins of the gospels.

It would seem Carrier has done that, seemingly in a more expanded, detailed way of what Earl Doherty did

[ghost]

^ The historical task is to explore the origins of the myth and the origins of the gospels.

It would seem Carrier has done that, seemingly in a more expanded, detailed way of what Earl Doherty did

Ethelbert Stauffer, Gary Courtney and Francesco Carotta have done it better than Carrier and Doherty.

[Hawthorne]

^ The historical task is to explore the origins of the myth and the origins of the gospels.

It would seem Carrier has done that, seemingly in a more expanded, detailed way of what Earl Doherty did

Ethelbert Stauffer, Gary Courtney and Francesco Carotta have done it better than Carrier and Doherty.

wow, ghost, you have read and reviewed Carrier's book already? Mine arrived yesterday and it's pretty dense. It will take me some time to get through.

[Hawthorne]

What's this "(allegedly) resurrect"? No allegedly about it. The gospels and Paul say outright he was resurrected. It is the cornerstone of their faith. Your logic -- without the gratuitous qualifier -- means that their Jesus never existed.

I said "allegedly" because I do not agree that Jesus resurrected. Of course I do not deny that Paul had Jesus resurrected.

40 years after an event means, and we are told this so often by many poo-poohing the mythicst case, is easily time enough for eyewitnesses to still be around to trash the suggestion so that it would never fly.

I do not think that eyewitnesses were still around 40 years after. If some of them were still alive, and after the destruction of Jerusalem, I do not see why they would, in their old age, proclaim gMark is trash (if they knew about it). And "Mark" (or early interpolator) made sure that the eyewitnesses did not know about the empty tomb, the "proof" of Jesus' resurrection in gMark.

Cordially, Bernard

So when was this man, Jesus, proclaimed as resurrected? Was it first by Paul? If by Paul, what would compel Paul, who did not know this man from Galilee, to decide he was the resurrected Savior of the world? If before Paul, then who? Where did Paul learn about this man named Jesus, called Christ? Was it from this Jesus' brothers? Were his brothers proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead? I am not seeing where your position makes much sense.

EDIT
I see I initially responded to a response and didn't quite catch the reference to a bodily resurrection. I think there are still problems.

1. Jesus the normal, but perhaps compelling, human, marches out of Galilee, upsets High Priests and Pilate and is tortured and crucified.
2. His followers proclaim his resurrection in heaven based on visions.
3. Paul writes that the rulers, including as we both agree, Romans and Sanhedrin, are appointed by God and hold no terror for those who do no wrong.

Let's examine this:

Romans 13.2:So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad).

So according to you, Jesus must have resisted the ordinance of God, otherwise, he would not have incurred the judgment of Rome. I cannot see how this logic follows.

Romans 13:4 But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer.

And, yet, it is your position that the very person Paul worships as the Son of God a) resisted God's ordinance, and was b) justly administered retribution for wrongdoing. Paul never refers to these authorities as having carried out the will of God by crucifying Jesus. You might expect just such a qualification.

In 1 Cor 2:8:

None of the rulers of this age understood it. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

What is the mystery that, had the Romans known it, they would not have crucified the wandering preacher from Galilee?