tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post3437658340735529670..comments2024-03-12T17:34:02.225-04:00Comments on NT Blog: How would Jesus have proved his own existence?Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-32530220492793007722022-02-09T02:39:54.605-05:002022-02-09T02:39:54.605-05:00Phil says, Regarding some people like Vinny who ar...<br />Phil says, Regarding some people like Vinny who are skeptical about Jesus' existence---<br />I am an engineer with BS and MS degrees and patents and I don't believe the universe exists as physicists claim with fake pictures of the galaxies. After all---these are just camera tricks to justify their atheistic thought system. I guess people like vinny believe everything he wants to believe. No? zeitgeist1833@gmail.comPhilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04221127876403004727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-81439475302296950772017-10-17T13:22:31.732-04:002017-10-17T13:22:31.732-04:00I think an historical Jesus makes better sense of ...I think an historical Jesus makes better sense of the overall story than a mythical one. Supposing Jesus existed, the original disciples such as Cephas may have invented stuff about Jesus after he died. One of the climax moments of Jesus' life was the "Jesus vs the corrupt, Roman loving Temple Cult" story (Mark 11:15-19) . Maybe the disciples wanted to continue Jesus' quest against the corrupt Temple Cult after he died, and so invented the idea that somehow Jesus' death was such a unique and important blood magic sacrifice that it eliminated the need for the temple cult (as implied in the pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed). Maybe all the disciples really wanted was a society of brotherly love and moral conduct. Maybe they believed that this "Noble Lie" about the elimination of need for the Temple Cult would ultimately fulfill God's plan.Palpatine's Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16610828032059030221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-85221653831881553882012-09-12T17:23:24.943-04:002012-09-12T17:23:24.943-04:00Mark.
I am not a professional scholar. I cannot ...Mark. <br /><br />I am not a professional scholar. I cannot read New Testament Greek and have never studied the earliest Gospels. I am also a Christian. Yet for me Jesus Christ is the personification of divine reason. This is the Jesus Christ that I read in the gospel of Mark, not an historical figure but one who is crafted by a brilliant craftsman. I have to confess that I do find it astonishing that scholars such as yourself persist in believing that an historical Jesus Christ did exist when an alternative explanation is much more credible.<br /><br />As you will know the writings of Josephus tell us of Judas the Galilean, a figure in early first century Judaea who during the time of the census of 6 CE encouraged the people to refuse to pay taxes<br /><br /><i>These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. <br />They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord.<br /></i><br /><br />Josephus was not fond of Judas and blamed his "philosophy" for many of the troubles in Judaea. Judas seems something of an anarchist and it is philosophy of anarchists to reject external authority, to reject an external Messiah or Christ and encourage people to look for Christ within their own hearts. <br /><br />The early Christians were anarchists. Of course, anarchy eventually leads to chaos because human nature is untrustworthy but James creates Jesus Christ by adding Joshua, the disciple of Moses. As Moses took the Law to the chosen people, Joshua took the Law to the Gentiles.<br /><br />This Jesus Christ was philosophically brilliant but too abstract for most Gentiles who were also turned off by some of the more ludicrous requirements of the Torah. The uprisings in Rome in 49 CE caused Claudius to expel most of the Jews was of great concern to Jews of influence.<br /><br />In 50 CE at the council of Jerusalem, those of influence asked for a flesh and blood mythical Christ (like Horus or Attis or Adonis and Tammuz) with whom people could identify.<br /><br />This is something that Paul provided.<br /><br />Time for a plug. All this is explained in my book - Interpreting Mark - Christianity without an Historical Christ, as well as the brilliant moral teachings within the gospel itself. <br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Dominick GardebDominickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08407057154921920028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-29837009816744152452012-08-07T15:23:58.068-04:002012-08-07T15:23:58.068-04:00gbarrett,
Why do you (and most others) assume tha...gbarrett,<br /><br />Why do you (and most others) assume that Paul (then Saul) had not actually seen and interacted with the earthly Jesus? His being the arch persecutor of the disciples (if not of Jesus himself before the crucifixion) certainly imlies that he had met up with Jesus and did not at all like what he heard. This is fully consistent with his having been a Pharisee, and with the Pharisees' opposition to Jesus. Paul certainly could not say he had been an apostle in his pre-conversion days!<br /><br />Where does Paul ever write that he had NOT met up with Jesus before the crucifixion? From 1 Cor 9:1 he says he had (indeed) seen Jesus; this could not have referred to his post-crucifixion conversion event, since he had been blinded by the light and could not have seen Jesus then. So it must refer to a time before or during the crucifixion.<br /><br />And if you can trust the embarrassing admission of 1 Tim 1:13 that Saul had "formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted" Jesus, the evidence clearly favors that Saul the persecutor had spent time with Jesus.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-74053272804657665872012-07-30T15:04:17.049-04:002012-07-30T15:04:17.049-04:00Dr. Goodacre, I apologize for the double post. Her...Dr. Goodacre, I apologize for the double post. Here you say:<br /><br />"I think it is clear that Paul is often struggling with the charge that he is not really an apostle and that he did not spend time with Jesus."<br /><br />I think that the first part of this is clearly true. Paul was, as he states, a late-comer to the movement. He has honed in, though, and trying to carve his own niche and has to compete with those who came before him. I agree completely with that.<br /><br />I am struggling to find support for the idea that being "really an apostle" entails spending time with the earthly Jesus. Where does Paul find it important to argue against the position that one must have spent time with the earthly Jesus in order to be "really an apostle?" Where does Paul say that anyone spent time with Jesus?<br /><br />Don't you think you might be begging the question?gbarretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12919315704094699096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-37721662107510197322012-07-30T14:55:21.648-04:002012-07-30T14:55:21.648-04:00It interests me that when scholars get challenged ...It interests me that when scholars get challenged they usually retreat. The rest of us may just be uninformed ignoramuses, I don't know. But I see many good points made against several presumptions that Dr. Goodacre made and in his follow-up responses. His response? These mythicists are too unscholarly to even interact with. But, hey, didn't your write the post to start with?<br /><br />Here are points that seem to have withstood Goodacre's reposte:<br /><br />1. In 1 Cor 15, there is no link between those who first have visions of Jesus and an earthly Jesus. Paul seems to be stating that they had their visions first and he admits to that. He was a late comer to the party. That seems to me what he means by "untimely born," which wouldn't make sense if there had been an earthly Jesus because Paul would have been alive at that time. It does make sense if Paul means he was "born" into Christ (a term he does use elsewhere).<br /><br />2. The reliability of using the Gospels for background facts on the historical Jesus: Dr. Goodacre protects himself with his qualifying tags, too, but that barely disguises his appeal to unreliable sources.<br /><br />3. (This is my own observation) A conspiracy theory requires claims that there is a conspiracy. What is the conspiracy here? NO ONE (that I am aware of) is claiming that a cabal of NT scholars meets behind closed doors to purposely mislead the general population regarding the actual historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. (I am aware that there is at least one myth theory that the entire thing was made up, but even within mythicist circles, that position is fringe.) The argument mostly concerns the existence of a defended paradigm, something that Dr. Goodacre has written insightful posts about on this very blog.<br /><br />4) We do not know what Paul and Peter talked about. The HJ proponent imagines that Peter shared the teachings of Jesus or whatnot. Paul, himself, denies that he received his information from humans and later says that the pillars "added nothing to his message." Paul only says he "stayed with" Peter for 15 days. That they talked about an earthly Jesus is begging the question. As another poster pointed out, correctly, they could have discussed their differing theological views regarding an entirely heavenly Jesus. Or just logistics regarding the mission itself. We don't know. To assume we do is presumptuous.<br /><br />Having said all this, Dr. Goodacre is a fine scholar. I have not quite accepted his position on Q, having read Kloppenborg's response, but it sure raises questions that I did not have before. Thanks for your fine work, Dr. Goodacre. I disagree with you only in that I think the proposition that Jesus did not exist as a human being is worthy of consideration, an interesting question to explore, and possibly helpful in broadening our understanding of Christian origins.gbarretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12919315704094699096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-28087338022670884842012-07-27T03:41:21.684-04:002012-07-27T03:41:21.684-04:00Dr. Mark Goodacre said:
"I don't believe ...Dr. Mark Goodacre said:<br />"I don't believe in Crossan's historical Jesus because I don't believe in his sources. I don't believe in Wright's historical Jesus because he believes all his sources. I don't believe in Morton Smith's historical Jesus because he composed one of his sources."<br />I belong to the people here appreciating very much your site - an impressive work you are doing to the gain for all of us. <br />I also happen to belong to them who appreciate Crossan's work as well. Therefore, after reading this blogpost I acknowledge that I am a bit confused about your statement on him, the hint that you do not believe in “his sources”. <br />I guess you are meaning the so called source Q, even if that is neither a source particularly invented by Crossan nor implemented only by him, as far as I know. But what else of Crossan's sources are you not believing in (I can't imagine that you mean all of them)? And for what reason(s)? <br />A scholar, as far as I see it, should not talk just about belief but give arguments for his position. Thus it would be great to get at least some arguments for your position versus Crossan or at least a link where to go to find out something about it oneself. I would appreciate that. <br />Thanks again for a really great site!<br />Greetings from Sweden.GoForIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15140446211376087710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-69934175912601378862012-07-26T07:30:10.721-04:002012-07-26T07:30:10.721-04:00Dr. Mark Goodacre said:
"I don't believe ...Dr. Mark Goodacre said:<br />"I don't believe in Crossan's historical Jesus because I don't believe in his sources. I don't believe in Wright's historical Jesus because he believes all his sources. I don't believe in Morton Smith's historical Jesus because he composed one of his sources."<br />I belong to those people here appreciating very much your site - an impressive work you are doing for us.<br />I also happen to belong to them who appreciate Crossan's work as well. Therefore, after reading your blogpost I acknowledge that I am a bit confused about your statement on him, that you do not believe in “his sources”. I guess you are meaning the so called source Q, even if that is neither a source invented by Crossan nor implemented only by him, as far as I know. But what else of Crossan's sources are you not believing in (I can't imagine that you mean all of them)? And for what reasons? <br />A scholar, as far as I see it, should not talk just about belief but give arguments for his position. Thus it would be great to get at least some arguments for your position versus Crossan or at least a link where to go to find out something about it oneself. <br />Thanks again for a really great site!<br />Greetings from Sweden.GoForIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15140446211376087710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-41758859637823041962012-06-16T06:21:25.766-04:002012-06-16T06:21:25.766-04:00Vridar tortures himself.Vridar tortures himself.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-37778677972779314662012-06-16T04:13:24.535-04:002012-06-16T04:13:24.535-04:00Vridar has an interesting post discussing some of ...Vridar has an interesting post discussing some of the possible meanings of the word that is translated as "untimely born" in 1 Cor. 15:8.<br /><br />Scholars seem far from certain as to the correct translation or meaning, contrary to Mr. Goodacre.kilo papahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112057471953902453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-70583826459158374662012-06-14T09:00:46.721-04:002012-06-14T09:00:46.721-04:00Mark wrote:"After all, what was it about his ...Mark wrote:"After all, what was it about his life and people's interactions with him / memories of him / traditions told etc. that gave birth to those beliefs about his post-mortem life?"<br /><br />This assumes that he existed and that he interacted with people who had memories of him, and thus puts the cart before the horse. It also assumes that the NT is a true record, which given that writers of the period are not exactly known for telling the truth, is too much of a stretch.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-72671513803890705962012-06-14T07:51:58.423-04:002012-06-14T07:51:58.423-04:00The total myth theory is ridiculous. We don't...The total myth theory is ridiculous. We don't have all we do have from myth.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-38454196534137556042012-06-14T05:10:29.359-04:002012-06-14T05:10:29.359-04:00The scholarly work has long been the product of be...The scholarly work has long been the product of believers.<br /><br />As we have seen the relevant ancient history is heavily flawed.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-45639923870657221522012-06-13T17:02:41.154-04:002012-06-13T17:02:41.154-04:00For scholars of ancient history, the primary texts...<i>For scholars of ancient history, the primary texts are studied in the light of their broader knowledge of the field, with consensus positions understood and only challenged with self-conscious realization that that is what is happening. In this kind of discussion, though, the data is simply tortured to fit the extraordinary hypothesis with no serious engagement with the scholarly literature, and certainly no self-conscious realization of where the perceived difficulties might be. </i><br /><br />The primary texts and scholarly literature are diverse (as you have noted) and extensive. You mention a few scholars and issues in your OP, but the tone set for the discussion was relatively general. I am not sure that in following that tone, the conversation has ended up resembling the way conspiracy theorists work. <br /><br />I would be happy to discuss primary texts (in Greek anyway), ancient history, and what scholarly work I've read...where to start?radiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491637645565343077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-30967209788545130322012-06-13T16:34:35.992-04:002012-06-13T16:34:35.992-04:00I am tempted to say that the problem with the ques...<i>I am tempted to say that the problem with the question "Did Jesus exist?" is that it depends what we mean by "Jesus".</i><br /><br />There must indeed be almost as many Jesuses as there are NT scholars - many of whom are barely recognisable as the Jesus of the canonical gospels. Hoffmann's bare-bones HJ seems to consist of a man called Jesus who was executed by the Romans (is this a unique individual? is this so different from a 'mythicist' position?) - yet he's also <a href="http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-stephanie-louise-fisher/#comment-6199" rel="nofollow">het-up enough about 'mythicists' </a> to say that "there comes a point where Jesus denial borders on Holocaust denial".<br /><br />Perhaps the crux of the matter is one of direction in time: for example, did this executed person gather mythical moss as time rolled on, or did belief based on mystical experience and scripture reach back to a figure that had a general archetypal rather than individual 'existence' to (again, for example only) flesh out a parousia that didn't happen?radiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491637645565343077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-57336788703960239762012-06-13T16:30:35.680-04:002012-06-13T16:30:35.680-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.radiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491637645565343077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-33473006721294038162012-06-13T08:05:14.296-04:002012-06-13T08:05:14.296-04:00Beard's Roman joke.
"A guy meets anothe...Beard's Roman joke. <br /><br />"A guy meets another in the street and says: 'I thought you were dead.' The bloke says: 'Can't you see I'm alive?' The first replies: 'But the person who told me you were dead is more reliable than you.'" <br /><br />Mary Beard and Mark have missed the point. This is a confession by someone in the know, someone from the uppercrust, who was used to manipulating lesser mortals, a liar.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-10861886796049688852012-06-13T05:53:27.641-04:002012-06-13T05:53:27.641-04:00Was this woman from the elite the first believer i...Was this woman from the elite the first believer in the new movement to come from Rome? Was her image to be found in the Catacombs of Rome? Was she the woman holding a child? And was that child Nero?<br /><br />A favourite hobby of Roman historians (all post Nero), was to cast Agrippina as having many lovers. So was Mundus just another invented lover? <br /><br />Had Agrippina been invited to a synagogue when it was "the hour" <br />of prayer (the fanciful hour to go to sleep). Did she believe that God had spoken to her.<br /><br />Agrippina (Paulina) told her husband and friends about her experience. Her friends were amazed. Were these the women with Agrippina on the catacomb walls in worship? <br /><br />Her husband who approved of what Agrippina had done, told his friend Tiberias. Tiberias questioned the synagogue leaders to find out about this Jewish movement and make sure they were harmless. These people were teaching something slightly different from some of those back in Judea. "They professed to instruct men in the 'wisdom' of the 'laws of Moses'" (Ant.18.3.5), not in the law. I think Tiberias liked this movement.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-31592260233390220832012-06-12T11:31:58.530-04:002012-06-12T11:31:58.530-04:00I suppose he would get a Roman historian to write ...I suppose he would get a Roman historian to write the Testimonium Flavianus. But he wouldn't need to exist if a Roman historian wrote it. <br /><br />Of greater interest to me, is the horrible garbled mess that follows. This must be more significant. Something about four 'Jews' who couldn't go to Jerusalem because they had broken the law, and taught people to believe in the 'wisdom' of 'the laws of Moses'. And a woman from the Roman elite who adopted this new form of belief. And why did Tiberias get involved?geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-25224774603036346192012-06-11T09:32:28.022-04:002012-06-11T09:32:28.022-04:00Who built the Colosseum? With whose money did he b...Who built the Colosseum? With whose money did he build it? What did he exhibit in there? Was Nero alive then? I have to wonder what really happened to Nero. In a fanciful tale, he was helped to commit suicide by one Epaphroditus. Committing suicide seems a very Roman thing to do, that is according to Roman historians. About the same time Seneca committed suicide. Was that another fanciful tale told by Roman historians. And what happened to Nero's mother? Were all these christianos murdered by Vespasian's thugs.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-79410973710150025272012-06-11T04:52:24.132-04:002012-06-11T04:52:24.132-04:00Many of these mythicist positions seem unwittingly...Many of these mythicist positions seem unwittingly to repristinate the historical pyrrhonism of the 16-17th centuries. In part, these objections to history as such necessitated or provoked the foundation of modern, wissenschaftlich historiography, as (to take but one example) Frederick Beiser has recently shown in his The German Historicist Tradition (OUP 2011). It would be interesting to revisit the so-called 'rehabilitation of history' in the 18th and 19th centuries and see how much of this debate has already been played out.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725813305580107500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-49154729507719130822012-06-11T03:53:10.106-04:002012-06-11T03:53:10.106-04:00I made a diagram to try and capture the varieties ...I made a diagram to try and capture the varieties of <a href="http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/how-historical-is-your-jesus/" rel="nofollow">"Mythical Jesus" </a>positions. See if you like it.<br />Love you podcasts!!Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-22960990295192152192012-06-10T18:20:03.603-04:002012-06-10T18:20:03.603-04:00According to Mary Beard, we can disregard what Tac...According to Mary Beard, we can disregard what Tacitus wrote about Nero killing early christianos. Tacitus was under Vespasian's influence to write propaganda. This hid Vespasian's responsibility for the violence.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-43769165861661590112012-06-10T17:08:47.912-04:002012-06-10T17:08:47.912-04:00Misticistas aren't like Holocaust deniers (Jew...Misticistas aren't like Holocaust deniers (Jewish Holocaust, Armeninan Holocaust, Syrian Holocaust, or otherwise). They are like the deniers of man going to the moon, or creationists, etc..<br />They need to say they are't taken seriously in the intellectual world due to a conspiação sinister, though unable to engage in publishing his level.<br />And they're just like what they are, because are attached to a in a predetermined unconditionally due to principle's petitions of philosophical and existential feelings, that precondicionam close to what they should not accept in the reality, since it is at stake for them a kind of "cultural cause" in addition to the historical study in itself .informadordeopiniaohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489998336259307860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-53954524052592842892012-06-10T14:54:54.356-04:002012-06-10T14:54:54.356-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.informadordeopiniaohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489998336259307860noreply@blogger.com