Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[FallentoReason]

2 Corinthians 11:32-33

New International Version (NIV)
32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

This describes an actual historical situation. Aretas of Nabatea did rule Damascus. Unfortunately for xtians, he ruled it between 84 and 64 BC.

They usually give this one a great big leaving alone because it fucks up their whole story line!

So Paul was definitely before the time of the Gospels. This means that the first churches established believed in a spiritual messiah? Mind = blown... AGAIN!

[Minimalist]

No. The incident cannot support that conclusion. All that can be said is that it describes a historical situation which did exist in the early first century BC.

For all we know, "Paul" was a creation of Marcion in the 2d century.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html

Marcion is often thought to have first established an explicit canon. Marcion's canon consisted of the Euangelion, or the Gospel of the Lord, and the Apostolikon, ten epistles of Paul, not including the pastorals. There is debate over whether Marcion truncated Luke and Paul or whether later orthodox scribes may have expanded them in some cases.

Oddly, 2 Corinthians is thought of as one of the "authentic" Pauline epistles, yet it contains this reference to a first century BC event.

At the time Aretas III held Damascus the Hasmonean empire created by John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannai was tearing itself apart with dynastic quarreling. Local powers supported one claimant or another to the throne and Aretas was up to his eyebrows in just such machinations. This situation went on and on and when Pompey the Great arrived on the scene he was enticed to intervene after a suitable bribe was paid. The Romans took Damascus in 64 and Jerusalem in 63.

It was Pompey who put Hyrcanus II in charge but with only the title of high priest. Judaea was stripped of much of the territorial gains the Hasmoneans had accomplished and reduced to the status of a tributary state dependent on the newly-formed Province of Syria. This model of quasi-independence for Judaea persisted in Roman thinking whenever they could get away with it for better or worse until the bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD.

[DeistPaladin]

Also there is no evidence in the letters of the New Testament for an actual Jesus either. Because epistles portray a Jesus who never came down to earth in the first place.

I'm fairly new to the idea that Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels. I don't understand how that works out... Does that mean he single-handedly invented the name and character of Jesus?

Hello Fallen. Before I answer your questions, I need to get one thing clear (a common misunderstanding of Jesus skeptics):

No one, not even the most die-hard mythers, say that "someone just made up Jesus one day". This is not the only alternative to the Gospels being a true story.

Here's what we know. The order of publications of the NT were:

1. Revelation
2. The Epistles (about half of which are considered "authentic")
3. Mark
4. Matthew and Luke
5. John
6. Acts

Second, we know that there was not just one brand of Christianity but many. The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting. There was obviously much disagreement as to what Jesus was and what he preached. Some of the major factions were:

1. Ebionite: Jesus was a mortal man adopted by God as a son, nothing more. Salvation comes through keeping The Jewish Laws. His sacrifice on the cross only fulfilled the need to sacrifice animals. Echoes of this version can be found in Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels.
2. Marcionite: Jesus was a higher god, superior to Yahweh, the Jewish god. They rejected all things Jewish, including the entire OT. Salvation comes through faith in the new god, Jesus. There was no childhood or birth of Jesus. He appeared as a fully grown man in the temple one day.
3. Arian: Jesus was an angel send by God. He was separate from and subordinate to Yahweh. They rejected the Trinity.

So if Jesus was a real person, it's clear he didn't leave behind a united group of followers or clear instructions on the faith he preached.

An alternate historical scenario to what the Christians offer can be seen if we read the NT in order. An ancient sect of Jews, chaffing under foreign rule, wondered what happened to Yahweh's pact with Kind David? Where was their promised kingdom? They decided that their kingdom existed in a higher realm.

At first, this messiah was the one depicted in Revelation, a conquering warlord who would restore the kingdom and punish Judea's enemies. This is consistent with Jewish ideas of what the messiah was supposed to be.

Then Paul and others see Jesus in a vision. They have little to offer as to the when and where this messiah lived, though there are some mentions of "seed of David" and such.

Mark brings this messiah down to earth and places him in history. Perhaps these stories were meant to be allegory? Perhaps they were pieced together from urban legends? Perhaps they were based on a real doomcrier (or several of them)? Who knows.

Matthew and Luke, working obviously independent of each other (given their contradictions) add to the story. They give us details of the birth and childhood and a more extended resurrection account.

John is very advanced in theology in comparison. Jesus isn't one with his father until this time. Read the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) and you'll read about a Jesus that is separate from and subordinate to his father. The new Jesus depicted in John is much more bombastic in his claim to be one with the father. It is clearly written at a time when the Trinity was gaining popularity.

Acts solidifies Catholic authority. Their poster boy Peter is clearly large and in charge. Paul shrinks to become a team player. The bombastic Paul of Galatians is nowhere to be found. The new Paul is a passive player, "sent here" and "sent there". This makes sense in light of how Paul was the poster boy for Marcionite Christianity.

What was the real story of Jesus? God only knows.

[Justtristo]

2 Corinthians 11:32-33

New International Version (NIV)
32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

This describes an actual historical situation. Aretas of Nabatea did rule Damascus. Unfortunately for xtians, he ruled it between 84 and 64 BC.

They usually give this one a great big leaving alone because it fucks up their whole story line!

The writer of 2 Corinthians must have confused Aretas IV who reigned in the first century AD with Aretas III who reigned in the first century BC. They were both kings of Nabtea, however only Aretas III ruled Damascus.

Anyway Herman Detering argues very well the case that the Paul described in the New Testament did not exist. Rather he was based on Simon Magus. You can read his case in The Falsified Paul - Early Christianity in the Twilight. So we can plausibly assume that all of the letters attributed to Paul were forged.

http://www.radikalkritik.de/in_engl.htm

[Minimalist]

The writer of 2 Corinthians must have confused Aretas IV who reigned in the first century AD with Aretas III who reigned in the first century BC.

Or, whatever scraps of happy horseshit that later came to be called "2 Corinthians" were cobbled together for a specific purpose. Let us not forget that when Aretas III ruled Damascus the city of Corinth had been an abandoned ruin for 60 years and would not be re-founded as a Roman colonia until 44 BC.

Someone went far out of his way to to attribute this nonsense to "Corinth."

[FallentoReason]

---

Also there is no evidence in the letters of the New Testament for an actual Jesus either. Because epistles portray a Jesus who never came down to earth in the first place.

I'm fairly new to the idea that Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels. I don't understand how that works out... Does that mean he single-handedly invented the name and character of Jesus?

Hello Fallen. Before I answer your questions, I need to get one thing clear (a common misunderstanding of Jesus skeptics):

No one, not even the most die-hard mythers, say that "someone just made up Jesus one day". This is not the only alternative to the Gospels being a true story.

Here's what we know. The order of publications of the NT were:

1. Revelation
2. The Epistles (about half of which are considered "authentic")
3. Mark
4. Matthew and Luke
5. John
6. Acts

Second, we know that there was not just one brand of Christianity but many. The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting. There was obviously much disagreement as to what Jesus was and what he preached. Some of the major factions were:

1. Ebionite: Jesus was a mortal man adopted by God as a son, nothing more. Salvation comes through keeping The Jewish Laws. His sacrifice on the cross only fulfilled the need to sacrifice animals. Echoes of this version can be found in Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels.
2. Marcionite: Jesus was a higher god, superior to Yahweh, the Jewish god. They rejected all things Jewish, including the entire OT. Salvation comes through faith in the new god, Jesus. There was no childhood or birth of Jesus. He appeared as a fully grown man in the temple one day.
3. Arian: Jesus was an angel send by God. He was separate from and subordinate to Yahweh. They rejected the Trinity.

So if Jesus was a real person, it's clear he didn't leave behind a united group of followers or clear instructions on the faith he preached.

An alternate historical scenario to what the Christians offer can be seen if we read the NT in order. An ancient sect of Jews, chaffing under foreign rule, wondered what happened to Yahweh's pact with Kind David? Where was their promised kingdom? They decided that their kingdom existed in a higher realm.

At first, this messiah was the one depicted in Revelation, a conquering warlord who would restore the kingdom and punish Judea's enemies. This is consistent with Jewish ideas of what the messiah was supposed to be.

Then Paul and others see Jesus in a vision. They have little to offer as to the when and where this messiah lived, though there are some mentions of "seed of David" and such.

Mark brings this messiah down to earth and places him in history. Perhaps these stories were meant to be allegory? Perhaps they were pieced together from urban legends? Perhaps they were based on a real doomcrier (or several of them)? Who knows.

Matthew and Luke, working obviously independent of each other (given their contradictions) add to the story. They give us details of the birth and childhood and a more extended resurrection account.

John is very advanced in theology in comparison. Jesus isn't one with his father until this time. Read the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) and you'll read about a Jesus that is separate from and subordinate to his father. The new Jesus depicted in John is much more bombastic in his claim to be one with the father. It is clearly written at a time when the Trinity was gaining popularity.

Acts solidifies Catholic authority. Their poster boy Peter is clearly large and in charge. Paul shrinks to become a team player. The bombastic Paul of Galatians is nowhere to be found. The new Paul is a passive player, "sent here" and "sent there". This makes sense in light of how Paul was the poster boy for Marcionite Christianity.

What was the real story of Jesus? God only knows.

---

Wow.. That's pretty interesting stuff. What are your sources? I feel like I've been looking in the wrong place to learn more about the history of it all.

[DeistPaladin]

Wow.. That's pretty interesting stuff. What are your sources? I feel like I've been looking in the wrong place to learn more about the history of it all.

The facts I've given about the order of the authorship of the books of the NT are not in dispute and neither is the existence of the heterodox Christianities (though Christian apologists will try to marginalize them as schismatics and heretical splinter groups that never really mattered much).

A good place to begin is with Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities". He's a Biblical scholar who believes there was a historical Jesus but his research shows the myth about how his ministry "got off the ground quickly and spread rapidly in the fact of persecution" isn't supported by the historical data.

Robert Price is also an excellent source for debunking the official apologetic story. I'm currently reading his "The Case Against The Case for Christ".

Another source is from the Bible itself. I have the New Oxford Annotated Bible, (NRSV 3rd Ed) which contains introductions that outline what Biblical scholars believe.

[radorth]

Here's what we know. The order of publications of the NT were:

1. Revelation
2. The Epistles (about half of which are considered "authentic")
3. Mark
4. Matthew and Luke
5. John
6. Acts

Second, we know that there was not just one brand of Christianity but many. The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting.

I see here a clear contradiction in your thinking, FTR. First you tacitly admit these are the earliest manuscripts, (which is why they were chosen for the Bible BTW)

Then you say there are all these variant interpretations of Jesus' life and purposes. Granted, some things in the NT are not easy to understand, but if these manuscripts are the earliest, and they do not disagree with each other, you have contradicted your point. You have a case only if there are disagreements and contradictions within these manuscripts. Can we fairly assume you can't really find any, so you have to talk about disagreements among sects?

This appears to be a "guilt by association" argument and fallacy, i.e, "people disagreed on what the ms says, so therefore the ms must be faulty."

To make an honest and convincing case, should you not point out the contradictions in and among these manuscripts? Instead you make rather gratuitous assertions, like "The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting."

Even if that were true, which it is not, it is simply an assertion that misleads people into thinking there must be contradictions in the manuscripts because sects disagreed. And why would you simply take the word of Christians who disagree about the Bible, unless you can use those disagreements to cast doubt indirectly? Could I not quote Christians who agree and say that means the manuscripts all agree? There is no difference, logically Those who say the manuscripts agree, atheists write them off as dolts, while quoting those who disagree. You can't have your cake and eat it too friend.

And by the way, (speaking to others besides FTR), the "mystical Jesus" believers who claim there is no reference to the physical Jesus are just wrong. Paul mentions "James the Lord's brother" and his death on the cross in several places, so The Jesus Puzzle argument is just ignorant at best and deceitful at worst.

[The Grand Nudger]

Epic fail.

Firstly, it's entirely possible to write fiction that does not contain a contradictory narrative (weighed only against itself). Dracula contains no internal inconsistencies, for one example. We don't call that a "Gospel" we call it "good fiction".

Secondly, the vast gulf of disagreement between narratives and sects makes it difficult to establish who has it right. That's assuming anyone had it right at all. If you have two divergent stories they cannot both be accurate simultaneously, but they can both be wild fabrications simultaneously. How would you go about choosing between one or the other? Do you have some suggestions as to which narrative is the accurate account? Lift the fucking veil, do mankind a favor?

"The bible mentions the existence of it's mythical character". Unconvincing. See my Dracula example above. Should I start stringing garlic over my door now or later?

[Minimalist]

Unchristian Christian?

Nah - pretty much just a garden variety fundie.