"If you don't believe there was a Jesus, you are stupid" (1 Viewer)

[SystemShock]

Sometime ago, on a discussion on the Mother Board, a poster stated that even if you don't accept the the miracles and other extraordinary claims, if you don't believe a Jesus existed, you are stupid. It's always nice to be insulted.

That's a comment that I have heard before, though, as if the existence of some religious leader named Y'shua would validate anything that's said of Jesus in the Bible.

I don't doubt (I think it's more than likely, actually) that there were religious leaders (plural) around that time who made wild claims about god (or gods) and who spoke against the Roman occupation of Palestine, and who probably met their deaths on a crucifix for speaking against the Roman empire; heck, it could very well be that one of them was named Y'shua... who knows.

But, in the great scheme of things, a run-of-the-mill religious leader is irrelevant, because the Christian claim is not of some mundane religious leader speaking against the Roman empire, but of a very specific persona, with a very specific background, who's given very specific ordinary and extraordinary attributes, and without the background and extrardinary attributes, there is no Christianity.

The Jesus persona very much seems to be an amalgamation of many other deities before him, such as (going by memory here, hopefully I get them all right):
Krishna (who himself seems and amalgamation of other deities - virgin mother
Ishtar - crucified
Prometheus - sacrificed himself for mankind
Horus - resurrected
Dionysius - wine miracles
Asclepius - curing the sick
Orion - walking on water

Seems that, whoever created the Jesus character, went around picking attributes from Roman, Greek, Hindu, Zoroaastrian, and Egyptian deities.

You can point this out to the people who call you stupid for not believing that the Jesus of the Bible existed, and they'll still call you stupid for not believing.

 

[Booker]

Folklore… the easy answer. A decade or so ago, it might have been the History Channel, said that there are no city’s/state records that a Jew name Jesus rocked the boat, much less claimed to be the defacto Son of God, impregnating a human being to accomplish this, and upon death whisked away to heaven. We know that virgin birth was a recycled idea from previous religious cycles.

The only documentation for Jesus will be found in ancient “religious” texts, edited and redacted by the Catholic Church. And they have no agenda but truth and saving us… Of note, average people did not know how to write, the disciples as far as I know did not , were fishermen, most of the texts found, as I understand it, were written hundreds of years after the time frame when Jesus was reported to have lived. So, you want a good story? I like Paul Bunya, better yet, Lord of the Rings.

You are correct that Jesus was not documented during his supposed lifetime, and there are no first or even second hand accounts of anyone physically interacting with him (only Paul’s revelations from Christ in heaven).

Regarding the dates of the texts, Paul’s letters (at least the 7 that are believed to be written by the same person) are generally dated to the 50’s (though there are arguments that they could actually date a century earlier), and other texts, such as Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, Jude, Revelation, and the extra-biblical 1 Clement are all dated to the first century.

Most of the other epistles (which are acknowledged as forgeries) date from late first century to mid second century. The Gospels are generally dated from about 70-120 but weren’t referenced in writing until about 150 or so when the New Testament was first assembled.

In regards to ‘folklore,’ though, I think that’s a good way to describe a lot of the dependent apocryphal literature generated from the second century on, particularly in regards to stories of the apostles (there were also dozens of alternate gospels, variant version of Acts, and many more forged letters).

The link below points to a good survey of the martyr stories — and why they should be considered horseshit — definitely worth a few minutes of time to read…

March to Martyrdom! (Down the Yellow Brick Road…)

Who among us hath not heard the old drum that the apostles and earliest followers of Jesus would not have been willing to die for their beliefs, if they knew that the resurrection had been a lie? S…

web.archive.org

 

[SystemShock]

Yeah, any kind of closed religious community gives the leaders outsized influence over the members. Likewise, there’s the threat of being shunned by your family and friends for being an apostate, like with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Oh, yeah. JW's, one of the notches in my religion belt, very short lived, though. Talk about a fun bunch of individuals.

 

[Booker]

Imo, there are several things at work regarding the NT. The gospels were collected versions of word of mouth stories likely from different geographic areas in the Middle East. They also were written to make various theological points to differentiate the nascent Christian movement which was not considered, iirc, “Christian” from the Jewish religion.

I've been meaning to get back to this.

I think you are correct as far as them being written to make theological points, but as far as them being word of mouth stories, while it would logically make sense if there were a historical Jesus for that to have been the case, there really isn't any clear evidence to that effect, while there is abundant evidence that the episodes are rooted in scripture (see my previous post referencing, for example, how the Elijah/Elisha narratives are recast with Jesus).

Paul, the first Christian to write about Jesus, is explicit that his knowledge came from "no man," only scripture and revelation from the heavenly Christ. And indeed, everything he says about Christ can be traced to being derived from a scriptural reference or is otherwise something he says came from revelation.

For example, who's aware that, according to Paul, the "Lord's Supper" was not something shared by Jesus with his disciples (Paul makes no references to there having been disciples), but was first revealed directly to him from Jesus?

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 -- "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was delivered up, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

Most people read that with Gospel tainted lenses, but if you take Paul literally, he was the actual audience for this revelation, no one else. If that was indeed the case, then Mark took that episode and dramatized it within his narrative, where it served a theological point of explaining how to propertly participate in what we know as communion.

But further, Paul's letters, along with the other first century texts I've mentioned, all fail to mention anything in line with the Gospels (no disciples, ministry, teachings, miracles, etc.). Clement appears to quote from Jesus, but is in fact actually quoting from different verses of scripture, just as Hebrews demonstrates that scripture was being read as secretly referring to Jesus.

And going back to the Gospels, time and again you find evidence of how their episodes are rooted in scripture. One obvious example, where Matthew makes a point to spell it out for the reader, is where he sends Jesus to Egypt as a baby, so that, as per Hosea 11:1, he can state "Out of Egypt I called my Son." That's not oral history, it's myth being recycled into new myth.

In Zechariah 9:9 it reads "See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Mark uses this for his narrative, with Jesus directing his disciples to fetch him colt to ride on when he enters Jerusalem.

Matthew apparently doesn't think Mark is explicit enough with his reference, so in his telling (where he repeats the passage from Zechariah to spell it out) he has the disciples fetch both a donkey and a colt for Jesus to ride into town on. He's not changing the story based on a different oral history that he's inherited, he's doing so to clarify the literary reference.

There are (literally) example after example after example of the Gospel stories being mined from scripture that make it obvious that they're creating myth from myth, but you can't really point to anything with any confidence and say "aha! -- that part right there is passed down via oral lore!"

Even the disciples, for example, being depicted as fisherman who are turned into "fishers of men" (i.e. evangelists), seems allegorical rather than historical. Also, as opposed to being an illiterate fisherman, an historical Cephas/Peter, for example (the apparent leader of the Jerusalem Church that Paul states he visited three years after his conversion), would have likely been literate and highly educated to make the scriptural connections about Jesus referenced in the Corinthian Creed (and that would be true whether Jesus was historical or not).

Either way, the overwhelming evidence is that the Gospels stories are carefully constructed myths rooted in scripture.

 

[bird]

I've been meaning to get back to this.

I think you are correct as far as them being written to make theological points, but as far as them being word of mouth stories, while it would logically make sense if there were a historical Jesus for that to have been the case, there really isn't any clear evidence to that effect, while there is abundant evidence that the episodes are rooted in scripture (see my previous post referencing, for example, how the Elijah/Elisha narratives are recast with Jesus).

Paul, the first Christian to write about Jesus, is explicit that his knowledge came from "no man," only scripture and revelation from the heavenly Christ. And indeed, everything he says about Christ can be traced to being derived from a scriptural reference or is otherwise something he says came from revelation.

For example, who's aware that, according to Paul, the "Lord's Supper" was not something shared by Jesus with his disciples (Paul makes no references to there having been disciples), but was first revealed directly to him from Jesus?

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 -- "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was delivered up, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

Most people read that with Gospel tainted lenses, but if you take Paul literally, he was the actual audience for this revelation, no one else. If that was indeed the case, then Mark took that episode and dramatized it within his narrative, where it served a theological point of explaining how to propertly participate in what we know as communion.

But further, Paul's letters, along with the other first century texts I've mentioned, all fail to mention anything in line with the Gospels (no disciples, ministry, teachings, miracles, etc.). Clement appears to quote from Jesus, but is in fact actually quoting from different verses of scripture, just as Hebrews demonstrates that scripture was being read as secretly referring to Jesus.

And going back to the Gospels, time and again you find evidence of how their episodes are rooted in scripture. One obvious example, where Matthew makes a point to spell it out for the reader, is where he sends Jesus to Egypt as a baby, so that, as per Hosea 11:1, he can state "Out of Egypt I called my Son." That's not oral history, it's myth being recycled into new myth.

In Zechariah 9:9 it reads "See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Mark uses this for his narrative, with Jesus directing his disciples to fetch him colt to ride on when he enters Jerusalem.

Matthew apparently doesn't think Mark is explicit enough with his reference, so in his telling (where he repeats the passage from Zechariah to spell it out) he has the disciples fetch both a donkey and a colt for Jesus to ride into town on. He's not changing the story based on a different oral history that he's inherited, he's doing so to clarify the literary reference.

There are (literally) example after example after example of the Gospel stories being mined from scripture that make it obvious that they're creating myth from myth, but you can't really point to anything with any confidence and say "aha! -- that part right there is passed down via oral lore!"

Even the disciples, for example, being depicted as fisherman who are turned into "fishers of men" (i.e. evangelists), seems allegorical rather than historical. Also, as opposed to being an illiterate fisherman, an historical Cephas/Peter, for example (the apparent leader of the Jerusalem Church that Paul states he visited three years after his conversion), would have likely been literate and highly educated to make the scriptural connections about Jesus referenced in the Corinthian Creed (and that would be true whether Jesus was historical or not).

Either way, the overwhelming evidence is that the Gospels stories are carefully constructed myths rooted in scripture.

Hmmm. I won’t arbitrarily disagree. I think that a more likely theory is a combination of theological development designed to separate Christians from Jews, Jewish scripture utilized to back those theological developments if possible and word of mouth along the lines of the kids’ “telephone” game. A itinerant rabbi makes statements against the religious leaders of the day for making themselves subject to Roman rule. This could be why the Pharisees were so concerned with letter of the law “purity”. Said rabbi runs afoul of the Roman rulers and pays the price. Those few who were followers started making various claims. These claims became more supernormal as time passed until it was necessary for the church to develop scripture that was different from Jewish scripture but allegedly prophesied by Jewish scripture. It is just my opinion but having a real human as the initial spark would make it easier than inventing him out of whole cloth. That being said it is doubtful that he threw the money changers out of the temple or was welcomed into Jerusalem in the manner of Palm Sunday. It is also doubtful that the Jewish authorities turned him over to the Romans. The Romans were not stupid. Anyone causing a schlitz storm which would upset order would not be permitted to continue.

All of this being said there is neither evidence for nor against the existence of such a person. In point of opinion. Such a person would not have been able to do much on any sort of large scale before running afoul of Rome. In additional point of opinion said person did speak against Rome directly and indirectly. Doing so would make it highly likely he would not be permitted to continue. He also would not have created a new religion.

 

[Booker]

Hmmm. I won’t arbitrarily disagree. I think that a more likely theory is a combination of theological development designed to separate Christians from Jews, Jewish scripture utilized to back those theological developments if possible and word of mouth along the lines of the kids’ “telephone” game. A itinerant rabbi makes statements against the religious leaders of the day for making themselves subject to Roman rule. This could be why the Pharisees were so concerned with letter of the law “purity”. Said rabbi runs afoul of the Roman rulers and pays the price. Those few who were followers started making various claims. These claims became more supernormal as time passed until it was necessary for the church to develop scripture that was different from Jewish scripture but allegedly prophesied by Jewish scripture. It is just my opinion but having a real human as the initial spark would make it easier than inventing him out of whole cloth. That being said it is doubtful that he threw the money changers out of the temple or was welcomed into Jerusalem in the manner of Palm Sunday. It is also doubtful that the Jewish authorities turned him over to the Romans. The Romans were not stupid. Anyone causing a schlitz storm which would upset order would not be permitted to continue.

All of this being said there is neither evidence for nor against the existence of such a person. In point of opinion. Such a person would not have been able to do much on any sort of large scale before running afoul of Rome. In additional point of opinion said person did speak against Rome directly and indirectly. Doing so would make it highly likely he would not be permitted to continue. He also would not have created a new religion.

Something to consider is, were they inventing a human out of whole cloth, or were they were inventing a god? It's not like the Gospel Jesus is depicted in a believable manner -- from the very beginning of Mark's gospel he's commanding demons and performing miracles, while being secretive about his true identity. If you're inventing Superman, how hard is it to also invent Clark Kent?

And Mark's gospel is believed to have been written in Rome, 2000 miles and forty plus years removed the setting of the story, when any witnesses would have been dead or dispersed following the destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora following the war, so it's not like people could go behind and check.

 

[Huntn]

So do we all agree that the historical “Jesus”, not un-similiar to Mohamed, tenants of Judaism, or most organized religions, are mostly used primarily as marketing salvation for some level of power, wealth, and control over groups of believers while existing on this Earthly plain? I’ll acknowledge that there could be some level of “well meaning” actual concern for salvation, or simply living a good life, but that the other elements (power, wealth, control) function as spoilers, hard to resist lures to most advocates, distorting any well meaning that might be applied to this mental exercise.

 

[Consigliere]

If you're inventing Superman, how hard is it to also invent Clark Kent?

LOL but not sure the analogy holds up. Inventing Superman is easier if there really was a Clark Kent, as long as Clark Kent’s life was undocumented.

And Mark's gospel is believed to have been written in Rome, 2000 miles and forty plus years removed the setting of the story, when any witnesses would have been dead or dispersed following the destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora following the war, so it's not like people could go behind and check.

Do you think it is a coincidence that specific narrative stories were written pretty much as soon as all witnesses would have died? So they would have been witnesses to somebody. Which means maybe there was a Clark Kent.

 

[Booker]

LOL but not sure the analogy holds up. Inventing Superman is easier if there really was a Clark Kent, as long as Clark Kent’s life was undocumented.

Do you think it is a coincidence that specific narrative stories were written pretty much as soon as all witnesses would have died? So they would have been witnesses to somebody. Which means maybe there was a Clark Kent.

I actually think it might be more the opposite -- if there really was a mundane Clark Kent, it makes it more difficult to make the claim that he was god on earth -- but either way it's probably a wash. And again, he would have had to thread the needle as to be so completely mundane as to avoid notice of anyone outside his cult, but still amazing enough for his followers to believe he was the son of god who created heaven and earth.

As far as the coincidence of the narrative stories being written after witnesses would have died, I think that also doesn't make a difference either way, as any witnesses who could refute everything as fantasy would have died as well.

If, prior to the Gospel of Mark, there were traditions or evidence of Jesus before he was elevated to god status, you might be able to make that argument, but that's not the case that I'm aware. The earliest writings, Paul and Hebrews, describe him as a heavenly being, and the earliest narrative of Jesus interacting with people outside of revelation is Mark, in which he's depicted as a god on earth who goes around performing miracles and communicating with demons and mythical patriarchs. Take away the mythical, symbolic, or historically impossible, and there's not much left.

I also think it should be questioned whether Mark was written with the intention of being read as an historical narrative, as I don't think that's the case. I think it's more likely the Gospel of Mark was written as a "meta" (for that day and age) type of allegorical reaction to the Jewish-Roman war ("the days of the Temple have passed, Israel will rise again with Jesus," something along those lines).

It's so heavily wrapped in allusions to various scriptural passages that I think educated readers of his time would have recognized what he was doing, which was basically playing mad-libs with scripture to create a new narrative. Literally from the very beginning the educated reader should be able to connect that he's casting John the Baptist and Jesus in the roles of Elijah and Elisha, and then Jesus goes about performing miracles that mirror but also improve upon those from the earlier stories.

Mark also has Jesus go around projecting his power, but being very secretive about his identity. He amazes people with his teachings, but those aren't revealed. He does offer a few parables, but in the middle of them at Mark 4:11-13 the author perhaps drops a hint that the story being told is in fact a parable (i.e. by definition, "a fictional story told to illustrate a moral or spiritual truth") -- "Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?"

Otherwise, is Jesus cast as a "carpenter" because there's an historical tradition as such that escaped earlier writers, or is that simply a metaphor for being god's "agent of creation," i.e. the builder of the universe? Likewise, was Jesus really killed at the instructions of Pilate, or does he simply serve as an allegorical placeholder for the "rulers of this age" (archons of this aeon -- understood to be a reference to Satan and his demon minions), who Paul credited with killing "the Lord of Glory"?

I do think, however, that the later Gospel authors re-wrote Mark with the intention of presenting the story as at least ambiguously, if not outright, historical. Matthew's gospel uses Jesus as a mouthpiece to inform Jewish Christians how to behave, but also embellishes Mark's scriptural allusions by reframing them as fulfilling scripture. However, when Luke retells the story he makes it more linear, and along with Acts seems to be establishing the "foundation myth" of how a Jewish cult came to be inherited by gentiles, i.e. this is the "true" story of how it happened. Then John is very explicit that this all literally happened.

If anything, I think that development suggests that once Mark's gospel began to circulate there was a welcome audience to the idea that it was all true, so the story became "truer" with each re-telling, with the Gospel version of Jesus eventually taking priority over the revelatory based Jesus championed by Paul and his contemporaries.

 

[Consigliere]

I actually think it might be more the opposite -- if there really was a mundane Clark Kent, it makes it more difficult to make the claim that he was god on earth -- but either way it's probably a wash. And again, he would have had to thread the needle as to be so completely mundane as to avoid notice of anyone outside his cult, but still amazing enough for his followers to believe he was the son of god who created heaven and earth.

As far as the coincidence of the narrative stories being written after witnesses would have died, I think that also doesn't make a difference either way, as any witnesses who could refute everything as fantasy would have died as well.

If, prior to the Gospel of Mark, there were traditions or evidence of Jesus before he was elevated to god status, you might be able to make that argument, but that's not the case that I'm aware. The earliest writings, Paul and Hebrews, describe him as a heavenly being, and the earliest narrative of Jesus interacting with people outside of revelation is Mark, in which he's depicted as a god on earth who goes around performing miracles and communicating with demons and mythical patriarchs. Take away the mythical, symbolic, or historically impossible, and there's not much left.

I also think it should be questioned whether Mark was written with the intention of being read as an historical narrative, as I don't think that's the case. I think it's more likely the Gospel of Mark was written as a "meta" (for that day and age) type of allegorical reaction to the Jewish-Roman war ("the days of the Temple have passed, Israel will rise again with Jesus," something along those lines).

It's so heavily wrapped in allusions to various scriptural passages that I think educated readers of his time would have recognized what he was doing, which was basically playing mad-libs with scripture to create a new narrative. Literally from the very beginning the educated reader should be able to connect that he's casting John the Baptist and Jesus in the roles of Elijah and Elisha, and then Jesus goes about performing miracles that mirror but also improve upon those from the earlier stories.

Mark also has Jesus go around projecting his power, but being very secretive about his identity. He amazes people with his teachings, but those aren't revealed. He does offer a few parables, but in the middle of them at Mark 4:11-13 the author perhaps drops a hint that the story being told is in fact a parable (i.e. by definition, "a fictional story told to illustrate a moral or spiritual truth") -- "Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?"

Otherwise, is Jesus cast as a "carpenter" because there's an historical tradition as such that escaped earlier writers, or is that simply a metaphor for being god's "agent of creation," i.e. the builder of the universe? Likewise, was Jesus really killed at the instructions of Pilate, or does he simply serve as an allegorical placeholder for the "rulers of this age" (archons of this aeon -- understood to be a reference to Satan and his demon minions), who Paul credited with killing "the Lord of Glory"?

I do think, however, that the later Gospel authors re-wrote Mark with the intention of presenting the story as at least ambiguously, if not outright, historical. Matthew's gospel uses Jesus as a mouthpiece to inform Jewish Christians how to behave, but also embellishes Mark's scriptural allusions by reframing them as fulfilling scripture. However, when Luke retells the story he makes it more linear, and along with Acts seems to be establishing the "foundation myth" of how a Jewish cult came to be inherited by gentiles, i.e. this is the "true" story of how it happened. Then John is very explicit that this all literally happened.

If anything, I think that development suggests that once Mark's gospel began to circulate there was a welcome audience to the idea that it was all true, so the story became "truer" with each re-telling, with the Gospel version of Jesus eventually taking priority over the revelatory based Jesus championed by Paul and his contemporaries.

Deep thoughts Booker. One reason the bible narrative is so hard to disprove in one clear go is that it is so disjointed in multiple books. Is there a chart out there that shows everything Paul said about Jesus (as a man rather than as a blinding light or something heavenly)?

 

[Booker]

Deep thoughts Booker. One reason the bible narrative is so hard to disprove in one clear go is that it is so disjointed in multiple books. Is there a chart out there that shows everything Paul said about Jesus (as a man rather than as a blinding light or something heavenly)?

There are a couple of phrases that get tossed out as potentially referring to Jesus as human...

Romans 1:13 is usually harmonized to say that Jesus is "descended" from the seed of David, but using the literal translation you get:

"...concerning His Son, who came to be from the sperm of David according to the flesh.”

For what it's worth, the word Paul uses translates to "formed" from the sperm of David (as opposed to the word he uses for "born"), and is the same word he uses to describe how Adam was "formed" by God from clay. As Paul also says Jesus disguised himself as a servant "in the likeness of men" so that he could be sacrificed (Philippians 2:7), the human form he took having being "formed from the seed of David" could just be an extension of information derived scripturally. Because it turns out that, like everything else Paul says about Jesus, this seems to be something he mined out scripture -- see 2 Samuel:

2 Samuel 7:12-14 "When thy days are full, and thou hast lain with thy fathers, then I have raised up thy seed after thee which goeth out from thy bowels, and have established his kingdom; He doth build a house for My Name, and I have established the throne of his kingdom unto the age. I am to him for a father, and he is to Me for a son."

The other quote that gets tossed out is from Galatians, usually translated as "born of a woman"...

Galatians 4:4-5 "...and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive..."

However, if you keep reading, Paul tells you that this is actually a metaphorical woman...

Galatians 4:21-24 "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants."

And this, too, seems to be derived from scripture, in this case both Genesis 21, which discusses Sarah and Hagar (and Paul quotes Genesis 21:10 at Galatians 4:30), and also Deuteronomy 21, which deals with having a slave wife and a free wife, and the rights of the first born son in this regard. Deuteronomy 21 also includes a passage regarding hanging a corpse on a tree, i.e. crucifixion as described by Paul just prior in Galatians 3:13 ("Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”) where he specifically cites Deuteronomy 21:23.

I think that's it -- a couple of ambiguous passages that upon examination are likely just repeating information that was teased out of scripture, which would be consistent with the rest of the information Paul provides about Jesus.

ETA: It's jumping off subject a little, but I don't think the Abraham/Isaac references are coincidental. God told Abraham to kill his son, but then stopped him from doing so, whereas God the heavenly father surpasses this by actually sacrificing his first born son, Jesus.

 

[Booker]

Just a quick follow up to point out that the 2 Samuel "seed of David" passage, which can be read to state that the son of God will build the Lord's temple, ties directly to the Zechariah passage referenced by Philo, where it can be read to state that Jesus, the righteous son of God will be crowned God's high priest and will build the Lord's temple.

Philo, again, referenced the passage as being one that was read as secretly being about God's eldest, firstborn son, just as, Hebrews, which describes Jesus as God's heavenly high priest, also demonstrates that early Christians were reading scripture as secretly being about Jesus.

Anyway, it's further reason to believe that Paul's reference to the "seed of David" is probably a theologically derived and driven statement, i.e., "scripture says Jesus was made from David's sperm so it must be so." And then, as religious cults do, you just rationalize a way to make it fit -- again, Jesus had to disguise himself as a human so he could be sacrificed, so the human disguise he took for this mission must have been made from David's sperm because scripture says so.

And that rationalization would actually work whether or not Jesus was purely mythological, as even a minimally historical Jesus would have been believed to have come from the seed of David not because they had actual family records going back a millenia, but because scripture said so.

So again, in regard to both the "seed of David" and "born of a woman" passages, it appears Paul is providing theological commentary as opposed to historical documentation.

 

[Booker]

Happened across this recent blog post, restates a lot of the same info I've posted in this thread...

No Evidence for Jesus Mythicism? Twelve Counterpoints by Joel Pearson • Hume's Apprentice

Let’s just make it nice and obvious there is evidence for mythicism as well as a lack of evidence for…

skepticink.com

1. Jesus is a god or demigod. They tend not to exist.
2. There are 0 eyewitness accounts of Jesus.
3. Christianity is a mystery cult.
4. Philo of Alexandria came up with a similar figure, so we know such a demigod could be created without basing it on a real person. He even quotes a passage where the figure’s name is “Jesus” in the unquoted half of the sentence.
5. The oldest Christian creeds: e.g. Philippians 2: 5-11, 1 Corinthians 2: 6-10, and 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8, show the first Christians believed a pre-existent archangel had descended, become incarnate and died, rose again and then appeared to select people to tell them this. This is never said to happen on earth.
6. Paul himself never unambiguously places Jesus on earth, despite writing over 20,000 words extolling Christianity.
7. Wherever Paul cites a source for Jesus: he cites visions or scripture.
8. Not just Paul but every other source that could precede Mark is also silent about Jesus existing on earth: e.g. Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 Clement.
9. The gospels are anonymous fictions in the wrong language at the wrong time in the wrong place.
10. Christians made up fake evidence and destroyed contradictory evidence.
11. Revelation Evinces a Mythological Christ.
12. Contradictory Timelines More Likely On Mythicism Than Historicism.

 

[bird]

Happened across this recent blog post, restates a lot of the same info I've posted in this thread...

No Evidence for Jesus Mythicism? Twelve Counterpoints by Joel Pearson • Hume's Apprentice

Let’s just make it nice and obvious there is evidence for mythicism as well as a lack of evidence for…

skepticink.com

Well, there is a lot to unpack.

Any and all religions but particularly the Abrahamic faiths are mystery driven and focused. We constantly hear in the OT as well as the NT that “the Lord said to Moses” or that “God said this” or “Scripture said that”. None of this is relevant to whether an actual person known as Yeshua bar Yosef ( if I got that right) existed.

Whether or not Philo wrote anything about Yeshua is not really relevant either. Such was not his concern. His concern from what I can see is a philo-theology. A philosophical theology which meshes his philosophical beliefs and learning with Mosaic lessons regarding an omnipotent, invisible God.

In point of opinion, there were likely multiple so-called messiahs, actually itinerant, preachers who were around in Israel at various times of crisis.

Of course, there is also the problem of language. The terms “Son of Man “ and “Son of God” were honorifics and not actual titles. There is also flawed translations of Hebrew by so-called church fathers. As regards the Gospels they are not eye witness accounts but theological statements based upon word of mouth stories. It is irrelevant that they were written in Greek or some other language. Imo, the various scriptures cited that are attributed to Paul are not statements of creed but statements of belief. The letters were not considered officially as scripture and thus “God’s Word” until the Council of Nicaea.

Christianity is basically a creation of Paul and the so-called church fathers. It was necessary to have scripture that backed what they put forth because the OT does not do that.

 

[Booker]

Well, there is a lot to unpack.

Any and all religions but particularly the Abrahamic faiths are mystery driven and focused. We constantly hear in the OT as well as the NT that “the Lord said to Moses” or that “God said this” or “Scripture said that”. None of this is relevant to whether an actual person known as Yeshua bar Yosef ( if I got that right) existed.

Whether or not Philo wrote anything about Yeshua is not really relevant either. Such was not his concern. His concern from what I can see is a philo-theology. A philosophical theology which meshes his philosophical beliefs and learning with Mosaic lessons regarding an omnipotent, invisible God.

In point of opinion, there were likely multiple so-called messiahs, actually itinerant, preachers who were around in Israel at various times of crisis.

Of course, there is also the problem of language. The terms “Son of Man “ and “Son of God” were honorifics and not actual titles. There is also flawed translations of Hebrew by so-called church fathers. As regards the Gospels they are not eye witness accounts but theological statements based upon word of mouth stories. It is irrelevant that they were written in Greek or some other language. Imo, the various scriptures cited that are attributed to Paul are not statements of creed but statements of belief. The letters were not considered officially as scripture and thus “God’s Word” until the Council of Nicaea.

Christianity is basically a creation of Paul and the so-called church fathers. It was necessary to have scripture that backed what they put forth because the OT does not do that.

Philo is relevant because he demonstrates a belief among Jews at the time that there was a secret son of God hidden in scripture, that he describes in the same terms Paul uses to describe Jesus, and he points to a passage which can be read to state that this figure was crowned "Jesus, the Righteous son of God."

And of course that doesn't mean that this son of God deciphered via scripture couldn't have been grafted onto a physical person, but it does is provide a proof of concept that no physical Jesus was required to create a belief in a son of God called Jesus.

Regarding itinerate preachers, though, it's interesting to note that that's pretty much what Paul was, and it's not impossible that the Gospel Jesus could have been modeled after Paul in that regard (Mark's gospel having in fact promoted Pauline Christianity). Paul is never mentioned, but there could be some subtext that refers to him:

• Mark 10:44, when asked who would get the privilege to sit next to him, Jesus states "whoever wants to be first must be a slave of all."
• 1 Corinthians 9:19 "For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them."

Likewise, in Mark 6 Jesus says something about prophets having to leave home to find an audience (because their families probably know they're full of shirt), which could have applied to Paul, but to other apostles as well.

 

[bird]

Philo is relevant because he demonstrates a belief among Jews at the time that there was a secret son of God hidden in scripture, that he describes in the same terms Paul uses to describe Jesus, and he points to a passage which can be read to state that this figure was crowned "Jesus, the Righteous son of God."

And of course that doesn't mean that this son of God deciphered via scripture couldn't have been grafted onto a physical person, but it does is provide a proof of concept that no physical Jesus was required to create a belief in a son of God called Jesus.

Regarding itinerate preachers, though, it's interesting to note that that's pretty much what Paul was, and it's not impossible that the Gospel Jesus could have been modeled after Paul in that regard (Mark's gospel having in fact promoted Pauline Christianity). Paul is never mentioned, but there could be some subtext that refers to him -- Paul refers to himself as a "slave to Jesus," and at Mark 10:44, when asked who would get the privilege to sit next to him, Jesus states "whoever wants to be first must be a slave."

Likewise, in Mark 6 Jesus says something about prophets having to leave home to find an audience (because their families probably know they're full of shirt), which could have applied to Paul, but to other apostles as well.

Actually, one line from Mark’s Gospel is in total opposition to Paul: “Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani ” My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? In addition, The Christ is alleged to have said in Mark’s Gospel: Why do you call me good? Only God is good. The so-called synoptic Gospels are anything but. There is also the problem that in the crucifixion scene across the Gospels, Yeshua goes from being in agony to having an almost pleasant conversation regarding Mary going to be taken care of the disciple that Jesus loved.

 

[Booker]

Actually, one line from Mark’s Gospel is in total opposition to Paul: “Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani ” My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? In addition, The Christ is alleged to have said in Mark’s Gospel: Why do you call me good? Only God is good. The so-called synoptic Gospels are anything but. There is also the problem that in the crucifixion scene across the Gospels, Yeshua goes from being in agony to having an almost pleasant conversation regarding Mary going to be taken care of the disciple that Jesus loved.

Not sure what you mean by opposition to Paul? If you mean that those lines indicate that Jesus was not God (i.e. Yahweh), that would be consistent with Paul -- he describes Jesus as an angel of God (Galatians 4:14), God's agent of creation (1 Corinthians 8:6), the image of God (Romans 8:29 & 2 Corinthians 4:4), and the equal of God (Philippians 2:6), but not God himself -- that didn't come until later.

Side bar -- regarding the "My God, My God,..." line, Mark actually pulled that from Psalms 22 when he was crafting the crucifixion scene. Note the parallels:

Mark 15:24 "And the crucified him, and divided his cloths among them, casting lots to decide what each should take."
Psalms 22:18 "...they divide my cloths amoth themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots."

Mark 15:29 "Those who passed by mocking him, shaking their heads..."
Mark 15:31 "...In the same way the chief priests, along with scribes, were also mocking him..."
Psalms 22:7 "All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me; they shake their heads..."

Mark 15:34 "At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Psalms 22:1 "My God, my god, why have you forsaken me?"

And there are lots of other texts used to create this scene. Mark says that the land went dark from noon until 3:00 (Mark 15:33), which is pulled from Amos 8:9 ("I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight").

At Mark 15:36 Jesus is offered vinegar to drink ("Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink"). This is actually from Psalms 69:21: "They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst."

John actually one ups Mark, demonstrating he knows that Mark is using Psalms to create the narrative and that he's also doing the same thing, when he adds that Jesus was pierced by a centurion:

John 19:34 :...one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."
Psalms 22:14 "I am poured out like water."

Otherwise, as you describe, even though the later Gospel writers cribbed from each other, they had different theological intentions and motivations, and would change what they didn't like. Just as you describe, John did not agree with how Jesus was depicted by Mark, and rather than lamenting to God at the crucifixion, he just says "It is finished" (John 19:30).

It's much more likely the variations are due to theological differences in what they were evangelizing, not because there were different witness accounts. Mark, for example, has Jesus baptized, probably for allegorical purposes to demonstrate how initiates are to be baptized, but the later Gospels authors didn't necessarily agree with this, and John in particular does not have Jesus baptized by John the Baptist.

Also opposite Mark's Jesus, who is very secretive about his identity, John's Jesus is very open about who his is, "large an in charge" so to speak. Again, different theologies necessitated differences in the narrative.

 

[bird]

Not sure what you mean by opposition to Paul? If you mean that those lines indicate that Jesus was not God (i.e. Yahweh), that would be consistent with Paul -- he describes Jesus as an angel of God (Galatians 4:14), God's agent of creation (1 Corinthians 8:6), the image of God (Romans 8:29 & 2 Corinthians 4:4), and the equal of God (Philippians 2:6), but not God himself -- that didn't come until later.

Side bar -- regarding the "My God, My God,..." line, Mark actually pulled that from Psalms 22 when he was crafting the crucifixion scene. Note the parallels:

Mark 15:24 "And the crucified him, and divided his cloths among them, casting lots to decide what each should take."
Psalms 22:18 "...they divide my cloths amoth themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots."

Mark 15:29 "Those who passed by mocking him, shaking their heads..."
Mark 15:31 "...In the same way the chief priests, along with scribes, were also mocking him..."
Psalms 22:7 "All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me; they shake their heads..."

Mark 15:34 "At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Psalms 22:1 "My God, my god, why have you forsaken me?"

And there are lots of other texts used to create this scene. Mark says that the land went dark from noon until 3:00 (Mark 15:33), which is pulled from Amos 8:9 ("I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight").

At Mark 15:36 Jesus is offered vinegar to drink ("Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink"). This is actually from Psalms 69:21: "They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst."

John actually one ups Mark, demonstrating he knows that Mark is using Psalms to create the narrative and that he's also doing the same thing, when he adds that Jesus was pierced by a centurion:

John 19:34 :...one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."
Psalms 22:14 "I am poured out like water."

Otherwise, as you describe, even though the later Gospel writers cribbed from each other, they had different theological intentions and motivations, and would change what they didn't like. Just as you describe, John did not agree with how Jesus was depicted by Mark, and rather than lamenting to God at the crucifixion, he just says "It is finished" (John 19:30).

It's much more likely the variations are due to theological differences in what they were evangelizing, not because there were different witness accounts. Mark, for example, has Jesus baptized, probably for allegorical purposes to demonstrate how initiates are to be baptized, but the later Gospels authors didn't necessarily agree with this, and John in particular does not have Jesus baptized by John the Baptist.

Also opposite Mark's Jesus, who is very secretive about his identity, John's Jesus is very open about who his is, "large an in charge" so to speak. Again, different theologies necessitated differences in the narrative.

Much of the Gospels are attempts for theological purposes to pull alleged prophecies together and assert that “this is what they mean!” After the fact is hindsight used to push specific agendas.

I actually don’t think it unusual for there to be little actual record of what The Christ said or did. The stories aggregated some 30-90 years after the fact are not intended to actually be historical. They are intended to be every bit as philo-theological as the so-called Mosaic books and the Q’uran. They were written not to establish religion but to establish methodology for creation of a priest caste to hold positions of esteem and authority. Usually, this also required cooperation of the state/ruling class. Christianity had to wait for Constantine. It is likely that some Jews perhaps chafed under Mosaic law and Christianity offered an acceptable alternative. Further proselytizing among non-Jewish peoples provided religion without animal sacrifice or sacrifice of other valuable items.

Btw, perhaps depending on translation Paul (or those writing in his name) does say The Christ is God.

Romans 9:5
Philippians 2:5-6
2 Peter 1:1
Titus 2:13

So, while the phrasing of My God, My God, why have you forsaken me may have been borrowed it is directly in opposition to Paul’s concept of The Christ as God.

All of that being said it is intriguing that the statement is made that The Christ came to fulfill the law. The law was the law. It was established as how to live and thus “fulfillment“ of it is not required. The law was established, that was how Jews were to live, period.

 

[Booker]

Much of the Gospels are attempts for theological purposes to pull alleged prophecies together and assert that “this is what they mean!” After the fact is hindsight used to push specific agendas.

I actually don’t think it unusual for there to be little actual record of what The Christ said or did. The stories aggregated some 30-90 years after the fact are not intended to actually be historical. They are intended to be every bit as philo-theological as the so-called Mosaic books and the Q’uran. They were written not to establish religion but to establish methodology for creation of a priest caste to hold positions of esteem and authority. Usually, this also required cooperation of the state/ruling class. Christianity had to wait for Constantine. It is likely that some Jews perhaps chafed under Mosaic law and Christianity offered an acceptable alternative. Further proselytizing among non-Jewish peoples provided religion without animal sacrifice or sacrifice of other valuable items.

Btw, perhaps depending on translation Paul (or those writing in his name) does say The Christ is God.

Romans 9:5
Philippians 2:5-6
2 Peter 1:1
Titus 2:13

So, while the phrasing of My God, My God, why have you forsaken me may have been borrowed it is directly in opposition to Paul’s concept of The Christ as God.

All of that being said it is intriguing that the statement is made that The Christ came to fulfill the law. The law was the law. It was established as how to live and thus “fulfillment“ of it is not required. The law was established, that was how Jews were to live, period.

Gotcha. Let's take a look at those passages.

2 Peter and Titus are both second century forgeries, written by liars claiming to be people they weren't and can thus be disregarded.

Romans 9:5 does depend on the translation. It's sometimes translated "...the Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" which would appear to show Paul equating the Christ and God. However, alternate, and probably more accurate, translations are "...the Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised!" or "...the Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!" Those translations would not indicate that Paul equated the Christ with God (likewise Paul just previously in Romans seems to indicate they are in fact distinct at 7:25 -- "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord").

And then Philippians 2:5-6 actually is very clear that Jesus is not God. Paul says Jesus has the form/image of God, and is God's equal, but humbly took the form of a servant and submitted himself to death, and for this was exalted by God and given the name Jesus.

Regarding Jesus fulfulling the law, that was written by Matthew, and it's actually a response to Mark. Mark indicates the the old law doesn't need to be followed anymore (see Mark 2:21-22, where metaphors are used regarding mending an old garment with new cloth, or pouring new wine into old wine skins -- i.e. followers of Jesus didn't need to hold onto old ways).

Mark followed Pauline Chrisianity, though, i.e. for the gentiles, so the law wasn't relevant (no need to get circumcised, etc.). Matthew's gospel was aimed at Jewish Christians, and thus his Jesus says the law is still in place (as you say, the authors had different theological purposes).

Likewise, second century Christians were troubled by the implications created from Jesus being distinct from God, thus they were eventually made to be one and the same.

Sidebar going back to 2 Peter, that's actually an interesting forgery to look at. It's a forged letter from one group of Christians to another, where the author posing as Peter refutes accusations that his community is following "cleverly devised myths" but were in fact "eyewitnesses" (2 Peter 1:16).

Again, it's a forgery, so it's worthless as being "eyewitness" testimony that it claims to be. But what it actually shows is that there were competing sects of Christians into the second century that apparently did not follow the Gospels and viewed them as cleverly devised mythology (which is, in fact, what they are.)