On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:07:51 +1100, "Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com>
wrote:

The points made by pl are all very nice...

Thank you, but they're really not so much mine as they are of the
modern search for the historical Jesus, and its concomittant paradigm
shift.

but why is there NOT ONE
historical reference to jesus from a contemporary scribe , scholar or anyone
for that matter.

There weren't that many scribes whose works would have been important
and/or precious enough to have survived both Jewish revolts, in CE 70
and 135 respectively.

The bible portrays "multitudes" amazed by his teachings and miracles...but
everyone forgot to take notes...now *that* is a miracle.

We don't know that no one took notes. It's just that the notes -
to date, to our knowledge - have not survived. Note-taking "paper"
was expensive and writing required education. Jesus in the NT is
never shown to ask anyone to write down his teachings, nor is anyone
else shown to do so. The NT does show Jesus and his first followers
orally teaching and preaching.

However, at any time, there could be a discovery in some cave of
Jesus' followers' first writings, or even of Jesus' own writings - as
has happened in the 20th century with the examples of Qumran and Nag
Hammadi.

We don't know that no one took notes. It's just that the notes -
to date, to our knowledge - have not survived. Note-taking "paper"
was expensive and writing required education. Jesus in the NT is
never shown to ask anyone to write down his teachings, nor is anyone
else shown to do so. The NT does show Jesus and his first followers
orally teaching and preaching.

However, at any time, there could be a discovery in some cave of
Jesus' followers' first writings, or even of Jesus' own writings - as
has happened in the 20th century with the examples of Qumran and Nag
Hammadi.

How can you confidently suppose that the bulk of the gospels' reports
on Jesus' ministry are factual while admitting to the large temporal
discrepancy? While John describes a three year ministry, with Jesus
and his apostles going to Jerusalem for two of three Passovers, the
synoptics, which are based on Mark, provide a chronology for Jesus'
ministry which over several chapters describes a single journey from
Galilee to Jerusalem for one Passover! That journey finishes toward
the end of that ministry. If you accept the synoptic gospels, you have
to ditch John and vice verse - and that's at the very least.

As for your appeal to a different calendar for John, I would love to
see what sort of calendar could fix that.

To show that this can't be just put down ALL THREE synoptic gospels
just happening to omit the same great chunks, the one/three year
discrepancy is consolidated. In the synoptics, the Cleansing of the
Temple occurs on that single Passover journey, a few days prior to his
Jesus' execution (Mat 21:11, Mark 11:15). In John (2:15-) it's made to
happen on the first of the three Passover periods of his three
Passover ministry.

Why are the Lukan and Matthean accounts of Jesus' birth so
divergent, even in terms of geography? Why are the accounts of what
took place after the 'resurrection' so divergent, again even in
geography?

Doesn't count. We are talking about Jesus' _ministry_, not the
infancy narratives.

Unfortunately, "We" are not you :-) I suggest you read the subject
header and then answer the criticism.

Are we not to assume that the

same people who wrote of his ministry also wrote of his infancy?

After the alleged resurrection, did the apostles stay in Jerusalem
(Luke) to see the risen Christ or did they go to Galilee (Matthew),
75 miles away?

Doesn't count. We are talking about Jesus' _ministry_, not the
resurrection narratives.

Wrong again. We are talking about Jesus' historicity. Any problems in
the credibility in the reports casts doubt over the reliability of
those whole of those reports. I don't know why you think you can
isolate just the ministry section and protect it as a separate entity.
Why should veracity suddenly kick in and end with that section? I note
that there are now two difficult problems you have stepped around.

<snip>

Moreover, there are very strong hints from later Christian and
non-Christian sources that the Jesus movement was founded by a
real person, not a mythological figure.

The non Christian sources are notable for their scarcity and their
dubiousness/doubtfulness.

They are sources nonetheless, and the pertinent ones indicate the
plausibility of a historical Jesus.

The BEST of the very few pertinent ones is so bad that the apologists
are forced to propose that it is badly corrupted, because the
alternative is actually worse. That's how good the 'pertinent'
evidence is.

As far as the later Christians go, it took 150 years after the time
of Jesus before we hear the Church naming and citing all four NT
gospels.

Irrelevant to this particular discussion, which is not about the
creation of the scriptual canon, but about the historical
probability of Jesus' _ministry_.

Hey, we are talking about the documents that provide the closest
witness to the historicity of that _ministry_!

Whom do you think you
are fooling by saying that the lateness of their promulgation isn't
relevant?

Moreover, "the later Christians" already had a choice of Gospels to
incorporate into the NT canon, which means that the Gospel books
themselves were already extant by this time.

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you there. If you are assuming that I am
arguing that the gospels weren't written till that late, please
understand that that is not what I am saying. I don't have to. It took
150 years for the four gospels to be named and cited.

For whatever
reason, they weren't deemed appropriate/available for promulgation
earlier on.

By the time they were promulgated, the traceability back
to the 'historical' Jesus had faded enough to protect the inventions
that they contained.

E.g., James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, brother of Jesus,
and witness to Jesus' resurrection, is well-attested as being
exactly that, both by outside sources, and by Paul himself, who
was James' contemporary and with whom he fought, reconciled,
sought approval for his Gentile mission, and for whom he raised
funding from his Gentile congregations.

If James was a brother and follower of Jesus, why did he and the
other apostles retain their Judaism instead of swapping to
Christianity?

Easy. There was no Christianity to "swap to." Jesus was not a
Christian and he did not found the religion of Christianity.

Actually, I completely agree. Paul founded Christianity.

The Jesus movement began as a revitalization movement within
Judaism, so his first disciples were Jews, just as he was.
"Christianity" is an invention of the Greek imperial court of the
Fourth Century. And while the term "Christian" is already mentioned
in the NT, it did not yet refer to a separate religion: it only
connoted "followers of the Christ".

I'm happy with that.

If James was the brother to the messiah and leader of Jesus'
Church, and his importance was on that basis, why was James a more
important figure in Jerusalem than Jesus (the supposed messiah)
ever was?

Because Jesus died early, and James lived long. And he didn't
exactly lead a "church" - he led a renewal movement, a sect, a cult,
of Jesus people. James was a "more important figure in Jerusalem"
than Jesus had been, because that's where his headquarters were set
up. Jesus, as a native Galilean, had been at best only a fleeting
figure in Jerusalem. The Gospels are unamimous that Jesus was only
an occasional visitor to Jerusalem.

It is also interesting to note that James enjoyed more extrabiblical
historical corroboration than did Jesus.

A high priest was deposed because of the killing of James. Nothing
like that ever happened with Jesus.

No, Caiaphas and Pilate both were deposed shortly after Jesus'
execution. Not that it matters - the two events, JC's execution and
the depositions, were not necessarily connected.

Given that you seem to realise that Caipphas and Pilate weren't
deposed because of Jesus, why did you say "No", disputing my comment
that no one had been deposed "because" of the death of Jesus?

Backing up:

~ Not that it matters - the two events, JC's execution and the
~ depositions, were not necessarily connected. [leper]

You are right; they are unrelated. So why did you use it?

and by Paul himself, who was James' contemporary and with whom he
fought, reconciled, sought approval for his Gentile mission, and
for whom he raised funding from his Gentile congregations.

Paul's traditional letters, which occupy nearly a third of the NT,
were written before the gospels. If they appeared in their proper
order, at the beginning of the NT, one would not have the
impression of Jesus being an actual historical figure who was
contemporary to Paul's own lifetime. One would have the impression
he was talking about some timeless and ethereal figure.

Wrong impression.

Oh, but below you say:

~ No, Paul teaches us his _experience_ of the risen, living Jesus,
~ which was equivalent to the resurrection experience of the Jerusalem
~ apostles. [leper]

That sounds pretty ethereal/spiritual to me. I think that there you
well support that I DIDN'T get the "Wrong impression".

Attentively read, Paul refers back to the historical Jesus' teaching
on divorce,

No he doesn't. Look at his teaching on a woman divorcing her husband
(1 Cor 7:10). That is where he claims he is relaying a divine
instruction. He says that a woman shall not divorce her husband. That
is in keeping with the OT where a woman has no rights of divorce.
Jesus' instruction (Mark 10:12) carries no such prohibition. In fact,
it implies that a woman may divorce her husband.

to his "meekness and simplicity" which Paul and his congregations
are to "imitate".

Why do you think that wouldn't describe a spiritual entity? Such
adjectives are do nothing to flesh out a person.

That sort of stuff
reminds of an essay that an English teacher read to us. It was
submitted for marking by one of his students. IIRC, the subject was
Alan Quartermain in King Solomon's Mines and particularly his actions
during some battles. The composition of the student's answer was quite
good. It was literate, fluid and provided lots of stuff describing
Quartermain - adjectives like 'courageous', 'decisive' and 'intrepid'.
The problem was, as the teacher pointed out, that he didn't know the
story. He hadn't read the book. In similitude, Paul was ignorant of
the life of Jesus of the gospels.

That is not his fault. The gospels
weren't around in any form at that time. They were an afterthought.

Paul definitely assumes that his congregations already know about
the historical Jesus' example.

Ironically, I think you are assuming their ample knowledge on Jesus on
Paul's apparent lack of knowledge of the same.

A timeless, ethereal figure who is "the coming warrior-messiah and
judge in heaven" is not meek and simple, and certainly cannot be
proposed as an example for imitation.

Sounds a bit like Zeus. None of that expounds any knowledge of the
historicity of the person, Jesus. It's airy-fairy.

Nor do timeless ethereal figures get crucified by Rome, ther by
causing in Paul's words a stumbling-block for Jews and an absurdity
for Gentiles.

Paul never said "by Rome". His comments tended to be more vague.

Paul's witness to Jesus is not only poor, it's very damaging.

Nah, Paul's pneumatology and christology are very close to those
reported of Jesus' ministry in the Gospels. Far from being damaging
to Jesus, Paul's attitude toward holiness, compassion, and the Law
actually furthered Jesus' own ideas on those subjects.

IOW, he didn't echo Jesus' teachings!

What about the opportunities he
misses in citing Jesus when trying to make a point? For instance, why,
when he wanted to make it OK to eat the Gentile food, didn't he simply
cite Jesus saying, "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by
going into him" (NIV, Mk 7:15)? For that matter, why did Peter need an
awkward dream/vision, where he was told by Jesus, that there was no
such thing as unclean food (Acts 11:5)? You must admit, that whole bit
was redundant and clunky.

Here are some other examples of Paul's failure to invoke Jesus' words:

<http://members.spinn.net/~hindiogine/textual-problems.htm>

~ Rom. 2:l,l4:l3/Matt. 7:l, Luke 6:37
~ Rom. l2:l4,l7/Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:38
~ Rom. l3:9,Gal. 5:l4/Matt. 22:39-40, Mark l2:31, Luke l0:27
~ Rom. l3:6/Mark l2:l7
~ Rom. l4:l4/Mark 7:l8-l9
~ l Cor. l5:35-55*/Mark l2:25
~ l Thess. 4:9/John l5:l7

There are more examples on that site for the interested reader.

He displays next to no knowledge of Jesus' life or of his
teachings.

He doesn't need to, since he's writing letters of pastoral
exhortation, not "gospels."

But he is supposed to be teaching the Gospel:

~ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--
~ (NIV, 1 Cor : 1:17)

I think I can safely say that teaching the Gospel means or - at the
very least - should include, teaching the gospels, had he know what
they should contain.

No point in looking for love poetry in an car repair manual.

But I am not looking for poetry in a car manual. I'm looking for Paul
justifying his teaching of Christianity by citing Christ's actions and
words. And that is what seems to be notably absent.

Paul teaches us Paul, not Jesus.

No, Paul teaches us his _experience_ of the risen, living Jesus,
which was equivalent to the resurrection experience of the Jerusalem
apostles.

What you describe there sounds nothing like Paul basing his religion
on history.

In fact, it's more like Gnosticism. Interestingly, Paul
was embraced by the Gnostics:

<http://www.africawithin.com/massey/gml1_paulpeter.htm>

From Gerald Massey's Lectures:

~ Marcion, the man who knew, recognised his fellow-Gnostic in Paul,
~ but rejected the literalisations and the spurious doctrines which
~ had been surreptitiously interpolated by the founders, who were the
~ forgers, of Historic Christianity. Further, with regard to the
~ Marcionites, Irenĉus says they allege that Paul alone, of all the
~ Christian teachers, knew the truth; and that to him the Mystery was
~ manifested by revelation. They spoke as Gnostics of a Gnostic.

Moreover, Paul did not preach "his" Christ in a vacuum. After his
conversion he was cared for and instructed by Christians.

But according to Paul he did NOT learn the gospel from man (Gal
1:11-12).

In all of Paul's conflicts with Jewish Christian Jerusalem, there is
no record of a difference over christology.

Oh, I agree there. They weren't interested in his hocus pocus, just as
long as he didn't fool around with the JEW'S Judaism.

They didn't care
at all what he did with the Gentiles. THAT is why the
disputes/discussions were purely in relation to Judaism!

The differences were not over the life, teaching, and resurrection
of Jesus, but over kosher and circumcision.

Yet, if Jesus were a real person, then his life, teachings and
resurrections are the things you would imagine they would be
discussing.

For some reason, they never get a mention. In similitude,
we don't hear of Paul or anyone else, wanting to visit the birthplace
of Jesus or Jesus' home town or Jesus' tomb.

If there had been serious christological differences, Paul would
have recorded them as he does the dietary and circumcision
conflicts.

Had they expressed any harmony or disagreement over what Jesus did or
said or meant, that would damage my point. Even if they were in
agreement, one would think they would have wanted to say something
about Jesus' supposed time on earth.

You think that Paul would have
been busting to talk about Jesus with those that were actually
supposed to have walked and talked with him, and those in whom Jesus
placed his confidence.

Moreover, his mission would never have been approved by the
"Pillars" James, Peter, and John.

I don't think his mission was ever approved in the true sense of the
word. I would suggest that Paul's ministry was resented but tolerated
(barely). That way it was easier to keep him in check.

If those pillars really did follow Jesus through his ministry, then
Paul's seeing himself as having equal authority - as he maintained to
have - would have been ludicrous.

It would make Jesus' supposed
ministry on earth a farce because the trail of Christianity would lead
through Paul to Jesus, rather than through those in Jesus' ministry,
the apostles and supposed eyewitness. Paul never met the man Jesus.

As you would know, the Jerusalem Church died out, so the Christianity
you have is through Paul who claims to have got the Gospel DIRECTLY
from the risen Christ. So much for a lineage to Jesus through his
ministry.

Don't you think it is odd that Jesus passed over his ministry and all
of his Apostles, to convert (via special revelation) and commission a
murderer and stranger to found your Christianity?

He habitually seeks support by invoking the Old Testament but omits
citing what Jesus supposedly said and did.

He very rarely seeks Hebrew Bible support for Jesus - that is more a
trait of the Gospels, not Paul.

I didn't say, "for support for Jesus". I said Paul often uses the OT
for support - as a justification for his own teaching/ministering.
Consider the following:

<http://www.vts.edu/2003/Spring%20Semester%202001/NT%202/NT227%20II%20Corinthians.htm>

THE BOOK OF ROMANS:

~ 3. Paul uses the OT as scriptural authority for his presentation of
~ the true nature of the gospel. [Jeane Brewer]

<http://home.christianity.com/topics/bible_study/71398.html>

ROMANS 3:9-20:

~ Paul uses the OT passages to prove his point that this is not coming
~ from him but God, so take head (I Kings 8:46; Psalm 5:9;
~ 10:7;14:1-3; 53:1-3; 130:3; 143:2; Proverbs 20:9; Eccles. 7:20)!

<http://www.sermonillustrator.org/minisermons/folder1/THE%20BOOK%20OF%20ROMANS.htm>

II CORINTHIANS:

~ Paul uses the OT ......

There are many examples here, too many to quote.

<http://doulomen.tripod.com/sermons/Ex20_15b.htm>

~ and Paul uses the OT practice to justify NT ministers making their
~ living by the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:13-14). [Dr. Donald T. Williams]

And in this one, the student is asked to explore how Paul use the OT
in Galations:

<http://faculty.mccks.edu/~steved/HTMLobj-201/BIB441_Crit_Into_to_NT_-_Syllabus.pdf>

~ Explore the way in which Paul uses the OT to develop his argument in
~ Galatians. [Dr. Steven B. Davis]

<http://www.atomorrow.com/messages/8/703.html>

ADVENTIST TOMORROW:

~ Paul uses the OT scriptures to explain NT concepts. [Sirje
~ Walkowiak]

Paul commonly seeks support from the Hebrew Bible for his theory of
grace-and-Law. To the extent Paul invokes the Hebrew Bible
christologically, he uses it to describe and explain Jesus - which
was a typically Jewish methodology, that Paul shared with the Gospel
writers.

The point is that Paul uses the OT to support his position, rather
than cite Jesus.

<http://members.spinn.net/~hindiogine/textual-problems.htm>

TEXTUAL PROBLEMS OF THE BIBLE:

~ * In l Cor l5, Paul uses the OT rather than Jesus' statements in the
~ Gospels i.e. l5:45 (Gen. 2:7), l5:54 (Is. 25:8) and l5:55 (Hos.
~ l3:l4).

Significantly, much of the gospel miracle material is no longer
thought to be supernatural/mythological at all, but rather a
fairly plausible presentation of Jesus as healer and exorcist -
common socio-religious functions in which Jesus resembles
well-known and widely-prevalent social types, both in the ancient
and in the modern world.

Like at the time of the crucifixion, when the dead saints came out
of their graves and walked down into Jerusalem (Mat 27:50-53)?

Of course not. Once again: The subject is the historical probability
of Jesus' _ministry_.

Again I suggest you read the subject header.

The "dead/risen saints" narrative is an apocalyptic _Easter_ scene -
and is therefore a POST-ministry item. Neither the infancy
narratives nor the resurrection narratives concern Jesus'
_ministry_.

That is nonsense.

Would a documentary of JFK's presidency not include
the events surrounding his final moments in Dallas?

Anyway, look at
the subject header. The question it raises there is what I am dealing
with. If Jesus was a myth then so was his ministry.

Perhaps you would
wish to argue that the birth and death narratives were by different
reporters and that they don't belong in the gospel accounts of Jesus.