tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post3047964070453002348..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Historicity of JesusStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19745369964343119982008-12-29T20:50:00.000+00:002008-12-29T20:50:00.000+00:00May I pour some petrol on the fire? Perhaps we ar...May I pour some petrol on the fire? Perhaps we aren't the only ones saying that questioning Jesus' historicity isn't that irrational, after all - see <A HREF="http://www.thestar.com/article/557548" REL="nofollow">this</A> link.jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353716090668341520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16606380384090869082008-12-04T10:42:00.000+00:002008-12-04T10:42:00.000+00:00@Wombat: I agree with you that "a movement can get...@Wombat: I agree with you that "a movement can get started and gain momentum without having an historical focal figure." Daoismus is based upon the teachings of Laotse, for instance, but the tradition surrounding his life is a later development. The "initiators" of the movement were the inherent wisdom/attractiveness of the teaching and certainly important leaders who pepped it up.<BR/><BR/>The cargo-cult which you mentioned is different. The "initiator" was in this case an external influence (the aeroplane's load) and the cult is a prime example of how external influences can be (uncritically) interpreted within animism. <BR/><BR/>However I fear that to apply these examples of non-existent initiators to Christianity is firstly highly unplausible in view of the history of ideas, which is littered with leadership as a key, and secondly becomes untenable when the actual data of the movement is studied.<BR/><BR/>The texts of the New Testament are shockingly centred around the person of Jesus, applying all sorts of categories to him:<BR/>* Jn 1,1.14 the eternal logos of Greek philosophy made flesh! (the logos in a person - not merely the logos explained and more clearly taught...)<BR/>* The eschatological worship of the Jewish God, Jahwe transferred to a man who died (Philippians 2,5-11)<BR/>* The (human) king of the Jewish people is a man who died.<BR/><BR/>One may question the truth of these claims, but to deny that the claims are applied to a real person is bad history.<BR/><BR/>The non-existence of Jesus is only maintained in esoteric groups. When you ask them for evidence they refer to their own, special encyclopedias and sources (much like the Zeitgeist film, incidentally).<BR/><BR/>This system only works as long as the "right" sources are asked, and other sources demonised, assuming that the entire corpus of historical science at universities has been taken over by the Rockefeller family or the Federal Reserve, or whatever. The worldview is hermetically sealed and works as long as you believe the conspiracy theory.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying, you, wombat, are claiming all this, but I just want to point out that proposing the non-existence of Jesus is tantamount to leaving the library full of peer-reviewed historical work and going into the wood to look for mushrooms.Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13194661508498825103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65853599842537570202008-11-12T10:57:00.000+00:002008-11-12T10:57:00.000+00:00eric - Just trying to follow this line so please b...eric - <BR/><BR/>Just trying to follow this line so please bear with me if I'm asking trivial questions -<BR/><BR/>Why should mention of someones death render them historical? The Greek tales of the Trojan war for example are full of them. A death is a way of establishing that the person is at least part mortal as in for example the death of Heracles.<BR/><BR/>You said "Why were Peter, James and John leaders of the early church, if Jesus never existed?"<BR/><BR/>How would Jesus existence influence this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82370109303898128932008-11-12T01:39:00.000+00:002008-11-12T01:39:00.000+00:00"There is an assumption.The other explanation is t..."There is an assumption.<BR/>The other explanation is that they were leaders in the church."<BR/><BR/>There's a difference between an assumption and a conclusion that follows from an inference.<BR/><BR/>Paul either thought or taught that Jesus was a historical figure -- after all, he refers to his death quite frequently.<BR/><BR/>Paul mentions the resurrection appearances, and note whom he lists first: Peter and the twelve. Why would Jesus be said to appear to Peter and 'the twelve' first? (Never mind, for the moment, the women; Wright, and many other scholars, argue that the appearances to the women wouldn't have been added later, and that therefore this periscopic material in the gospel accounts likely antedates Paul's letters; however, it's a contentious issue, and not relevant. I merely mention it to preempt any attempt you might make to raise an irrelevant issue.) If Paul either thought or taught that Jesus was a historical figure, and if he told others that Jesus appeared after his death first to Peter and the twelve, the obvious conclusion is that they either knew Jesus and were close to him (why else would he be said to appear to them?), or that Paul (and his audience) thought that they knew Jesus. Your conclusion, i.e. that they never knew Jesus, a fictional character whom they probably created, doesn't explain these facts (and Paul's references to the apostles in Galatians) at all; rather, much like a creationist with an agenda, you use the gaps in the historical data to support your 'mythical Jesus' position, only your now required to suppose that Peter and the apostles originated it (rather than Paul). Now, you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever to support your conclusion that Peter, James and John were merely early leaders of the church, and that they never knew Jesus, while both all the textual data and every non-evidential criterion by which we test explanations (simplicity, etc.) supports my conclusion.<BR/><BR/>So, let me put the question to you:<BR/><BR/>Why were Peter, James and John leaders of the early church, if Jesus never existed? (And please, try to provide some actual evidence to support your conclusion, so as not to waste my time and yours with wooly conjectures.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69249297304486673332008-11-11T06:28:00.000+00:002008-11-11T06:28:00.000+00:00'The most obvious explanation is that not only wer...'The most obvious explanation is that not only were they known to Paul's audience, *but they were known to Paul's audience as having known Jesus*.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>There is an assumption.<BR/><BR/>The other explanation is that they were leaders in the church.<BR/><BR/>This explains why Paul does not regard James as having any really special authority, as compared to Paul, because of his being any alleged brother of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Galatians 1<BR/>I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>Paul does not claim that Peter, James and John taught him anything.<BR/><BR/>Galatians 2<BR/>When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>I think Christians call this 'appealing to the authority of Peter', because everybody knew that Peter knew Jesus personally.<BR/><BR/>GALATIANS 2<BR/>As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>It made no difference to Paul that these people knew Jesus personally (!), and knowing Jesus could add nothing to the message of somebody who never met Jesus (!)<BR/><BR/>Yes, that all makes sense....Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25657249212655055182008-11-10T23:05:00.000+00:002008-11-10T23:05:00.000+00:00There's one fact that the "Jesus-myth" crowd canno...There's one fact that the "Jesus-myth" crowd cannot adequately explain: Why does Paul appeal to his meeting with Peter, James and (later) John to establish the authority of his teachings? Clearly, this makes no sense if Peter, James and John did not exist; Paul is availing himself of his audience's familiarity with them. Now, why would Paul appeal to Peter, James and John? The most obvious explanation is that not only were they known to Paul's audience, *but they were known to Paul's audience as having known Jesus*. This simple fact undermines the whole case against Paul having created the Jesus-myth, and it serves to severely undermine the case against the existence of the historical Jesus. The most parsimonious interpretation of this fact is that Peter, James and John knew Jesus; that members of Paul's audience knew that Peter, James and John knew Jesus; and that Paul is appealing to this common knowledge to support his teachings. The notion that Paul is appealing to non-existent people, or that he is appealing to fellow members of some conspiracy, is patently ad hoc, not to say ridiculous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51599429482163269662008-11-10T16:25:00.000+00:002008-11-10T16:25:00.000+00:00Sam - "The issue is how one explains the rise of ...Sam - "The issue is how one explains the rise of Christianity when postulating the non-existence of Jesus."<BR/><BR/>I think that it has already been shown in other instances that a movement can get started and gain momentum without having an historical focal figure. It obviously helps if there is a vocal charismatic leader but this does not have to be the central figure on whom the story is based. I have mentioned the well documented cargo cults (which appear in Dawkins book) but would also consider Mormonism and Scientology as examples too. The Mormons can point to a historical Smith but what of the angel Moroni or the claimed author of their original text Mormon himself? In the Scientologist case we have a real L. Ron Hubbard but again what about Xenu? (ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy") In the same way Christians have a historical Paul, a great missionary, charismatic etc. <BR/><BR/>Admittedly just because this sort of thing can (and obviously does) happen does not mean that it did in this particular case but it does mean that we can't just point to a lot of Christians milling around and claim that their manifest existence proves the historicity of their theme story any more than one can use an observation about the number of homeopathic "medicine" shops to get a paper published in "The Lancet".<BR/>It also means that the supporters of the "Mythical Jesus" have plausible examples to offer and so they cannot be dismissed out of hand for want of one.<BR/><BR/>Now if some nice archaeologist could find PP's filing cabinet....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65136825247882250002008-11-10T14:24:00.000+00:002008-11-10T14:24:00.000+00:00KYLECarr, you need to show some positive evidence ...KYLE<BR/>Carr, you need to show some positive evidence for thinking that Paul didn't believe that Jesus existed.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>I knew there would be no evidence coming back the other way.<BR/><BR/>The historicist theory explains the facts so well, that it is no wonder that historicists are reduced to silence so often :-)<BR/><BR/>According to Paul, the reason why the Jews had not converted was because they had not heard of Jesus, because preachers were only just now being sent.<BR/><BR/>He never accuses them of ignoring the signs of Jesus, or the miracles of Jesus, or the preachings of Jesus, or the resurrection of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>The Jews had not converted because they had not heard of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Even Paul could not come up with many things that Jesus had done.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54613804938442242902008-11-10T12:56:00.000+00:002008-11-10T12:56:00.000+00:00Steven Carr,It seems to me that you are trying to ...Steven Carr,<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that you are trying to show that Paul did not believe that Jesus existed.<BR/><BR/>You attempt to show this by by the following method:<BR/><BR/>1. If Paul believed Jesus existed he would have said X.<BR/><BR/>2. You then point out that we have no record of Paul saying X.<BR/><BR/>3. And from this you conclude that Paul did not believe that Jesus existed.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that your claims of the form in 1 are correct, but even if they are, your argument doesn't work.<BR/><BR/>There could be many reasons why there is no record of Paul saying the things you claim he says.<BR/><BR/>i) He said it in another letter, that we no longer have<BR/><BR/>ii) he said it ion person, so there is no written record<BR/><BR/>iii) someone else was dealing with these issues, so Paul saw no reason to add to what had already been said<BR/><BR/>iv) Noone asked him about it<BR/><BR/>Carr, you need to show some positive evidence for thinking that Paul didn't believe that Jesus existed.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051333311927845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23511244728046819872008-11-10T12:39:00.000+00:002008-11-10T12:39:00.000+00:00There is still no explanation as to why Paul never...There is still no explanation as to why Paul never has to produce any defense of the blasphemous-to-Jews idea of God becoming human.<BR/><BR/>There is still no explanation as to why Paul never has to explain away the failure of Jesus to convert Jews.<BR/><BR/>His only comment is that the Jews could hardly believe without a preacher being sent to them!<BR/><BR/>But doesn't Paul realise that allegedly, just 3 years before his conversion, Jesus himself was allegedly preaching to the Jews!<BR/><BR/>Romans 10:14<BR/>How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I repeat Paul's statement 'And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?'<BR/><BR/>The Jews have never even heard of Jesus!<BR/><BR/>Although Paul states outright that Jews have never heard of Jesus, you will be called a loonie, living in a fantasy land, irrational, silliness, if you stop to think for a second about what Paul writes.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9023905013068378912008-11-10T12:11:00.000+00:002008-11-10T12:11:00.000+00:00DEKEFor Paul, God did not spare his own son becaus...DEKE<BR/>For Paul, God did not spare his own son because he is the one who sent him for the specific purpose of being an atoning sacrifice, and then allowing him to be sacrificed. <BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>So basically God was responsible for the death of Jesus?<BR/><BR/>And that explains why Paul is adamant that the authorities never punish innocent people, and only punish the wicked?<BR/><BR/>DEKE<BR/>There are plenty of scholars who are not Christians who would treat the Jesus myth idea as silliness. <BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>And I'm sure that in 2,000 years people will treat the 'Maitreya-myth' idea as silliness.<BR/><BR/>After all, the followers of the Maitreya have reported that he appeared to 6000 people, and is living in London.<BR/><BR/>DEKE<BR/>By the standards of ancient historiography, the establishment of Jesus of Nazareth as a first century historical figure who was poor, Jewish, an itinerant preacher, and crucified, is exemplary. <BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>And by the same standards, the establishment of the Maitreya as a 20th century historical figure who was poor, Muslim and lived in London is exemplary.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you can explain why Paul never mentions Jesus doing anything other than founding the cultic meal. (not even preaching!)<BR/><BR/>Perhap you can explain why not one person named himself as somebody who saw Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you can explain why the author of James was unable to come up with one example of the life of Jesus for people to follow.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you can explain why Paul knew that people were preaching all sorts of different Jesus's - not all of whom could exist, obviously.<BR/><BR/>All of these should be met with the standard historical answers, which people have already worked out, and have all ready to go.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Instead, they are met with outrage and personal abuse.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38914076657688041782008-11-10T10:06:00.000+00:002008-11-10T10:06:00.000+00:00Carr, you’re nuts. For Paul, God did not spare hi...Carr, you’re nuts. For Paul, God did not spare his own son because he is the one who sent him for the specific purpose of being an atoning sacrifice, and then allowing him to be sacrificed. Gal 4:4-5<BR/><BR/>Stephen Law, I won’t take up a lot of your time as I only comment when I feel I absolutely have to. I applaud your honesty in dealing with the the issues surrounding the historical Jesus. No one should ever call you crazy for that. The greatest thing about history is that we always have the ability to re-evaluate or positions as new arguments and evidence are put forth. That being said, repeatedly giving the impression that the Gospel authors, and even many modern NT scholars as being the authors of "true believer” works, and so somehow becoming magically less valuable for the discussion at hand is wrong. <BR/><BR/>Regarding the Gospel authors, (eyewitnesses, later Christians, or communities, all these options are entertained by scholars) there is no such thing as a piece of historical literature, ancient or otherwise, that is "objective". All, are put forth with certain presuppositions and biases. Consider the work on the Holocaust. Many of these scholars are Jews, and so are “true believers” that the holocaust was wrong and should be remembered as such. Does this mean we should suspect them? That we should consider their testimony of less value than any non-Jewish scholar? History is always biased to some degree. There is no avoiding this fact. <BR/><BR/>With regard to modern NT scholars, this is simply not acceptable. There are plenty of scholars who are not Christians who would treat the Jesus myth idea as silliness. Further, insinuating that the opinions of those who are Christians are somehow of less value because they are "true believers" is even more inappropriate. It is analogous to me saying, "There is not one logical argument that supports atheism. All those atheists who argue otherwise are simply 'true-disbelievers' and so do not need to be taken seriously." Using your argument, Young Earth Creationists are totally vindicated. The evolutionists simply are too biased in their naturalism. <BR/><BR/>By the standards of ancient historiography, the establishment of Jesus of Nazareth as a first century historical figure who was poor, Jewish, an itinerant preacher, and crucified, is exemplary. Virgin birth? Miricles? Raised from the dead? These are completely seperat issues. I am convinced that if you continue to research this in the future, carefully weighing the evidence on both sides, and using modern, historical and text critical tools (which by-the-bye, excludes internet and amateur film-making loonies) you will come to this conclusion as well.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>DekeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83910462249521370032008-11-09T18:09:00.000+00:002008-11-09T18:09:00.000+00:00I see.So Sam cannot find a word in Romans 8 which ...I see.<BR/><BR/>So Sam cannot find a word in Romans 8 which says the authorities were persecuting Christians.<BR/><BR/>But a total lack of any evidence never stopped Christians harmonising passages before...<BR/><BR/>Paul says he himself persecuted Christians.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps he regards himself as the authorities ??<BR/><BR/>Romans 8 says 'He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?'<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Paul thought God killed the Son?<BR/><BR/>How could God have spared his own Son, if God took no part in his death?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61313537735020804632008-11-09T16:54:00.000+00:002008-11-09T16:54:00.000+00:00Dear wombat,As far as Tacitus' sources go, it's a ...Dear wombat,<BR/>As far as Tacitus' sources go, it's a lot of guess-work. <BR/><BR/>Mid- to late-second century apologists Justin and Tertullian, writing to Roman officials, appeal to Roman records concerning Jesus' death under Pilate. <BR/><BR/>But if Tacitus had consulted Prokrator Pilate's reports, then he would have got the name right - he seems to have thought that "Christ" was Jesus' name, rather than just his title. <BR/><BR/>So while I do in fact think that Pilate's record once sat in a filing cabinet (particularly because of Justin's reference in <A HREF="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.xlviii.html" REL="nofollow">Apol I:48,3</A>), I don't think that Tacitus consulted it.<BR/><BR/>To be frank, the weight of a few mentions in Roman and Jewish sources is not really the issue. The issue is how one explains the rise of Christianity when postulating the non-existence of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>If there are atheists here who really feel the calling to get on the back of Christians then they can get into James Crossley, a non-Christian scholar who believes that most of the gospels are early and historically valuable. Food for thought!<BR/><BR/>I can't believe that I, a Christian, am giving you guys such a hot tip. Not as hot as N.T. Wright though ;)Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13194661508498825103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21744558156251213672008-11-09T16:04:00.000+00:002008-11-09T16:04:00.000+00:00Dear Stephen Carr,I'll explain it more clearly:If ...Dear Stephen Carr,<BR/>I'll explain it more clearly:<BR/><BR/>If you portray Romans 13 as a <I>categorical</I> statement along the lines of: "bad people always get beaten up and punished, and whoever is healthy is good", then the expectation in Romans 8:35-36 that Christians might undergo persecution (the quote refers to the persecution of the innocent in Psalm 44:20-22) is being ignored. Paul's statement in Romans 13 is a <I>general</I> statement along the lines of "thank God for the police: the police are there so that swindlers get caught and grandmas can sleep safe at night - if you don't park on the double-yellow-line you won't get a ticket."Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13194661508498825103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61266610699123566392008-11-09T13:52:00.000+00:002008-11-09T13:52:00.000+00:00Is ANYTHING in the Bible historically true?I very ...Is ANYTHING in the Bible historically true?<BR/><BR/>I very much doubt it.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40395227798854981002008-11-09T01:01:00.000+00:002008-11-09T01:01:00.000+00:00SAMSteven Carr,I'll repeat what I said:"Your portr...SAM<BR/>Steven Carr,<BR/>I'll repeat what I said:<BR/>"Your portrayal of Romans 13 as a bare causal "solution" to the theodicy problem ignores the motif of martyrdom in chapter 8."<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>I am indeed ignoring this nonsense you write.<BR/><BR/>If you actually wrote a paragraph explaining what you were talking about, I might have a chance of understanding you.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3767837582199111662008-11-09T00:59:00.000+00:002008-11-09T00:59:00.000+00:00'None of the RULERS of this age understood it, for...'None of the RULERS of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have CRUCIFIED the Lord of glory.'<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>1 Thessalonians 2:14-16:<BR/>the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. <BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>I guess the Jews were the rulers of the age.<BR/><BR/>And here was me thinking that they were downtrodden and oppressed,<BR/>and all the time they were the rulers of the age.<BR/><BR/>Did the Jews kill Jesus, as Mr. Freethinker claims?<BR/><BR/>Let us talk about non-existent persons.<BR/><BR/>Let us talk about the Maitreya<BR/><BR/>What could have caused Benjamin Creme to start to say that such a person lives, and is a real, historical person?<BR/><BR/>Surely the simplest explanation for Creme preaching a Maitreya is that there is a charismatic figure living and teaching today.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the fame of this person has not spread beyond a small circle , which is why nobody else writes about him.<BR/><BR/>But in 2,000 years the existence of the Maitreya will be considered axiomatic and anybody who questions whether such a person lived will be called irrational and living in a fantasy land. <BR/><BR/>Here are just some of the miracles worked by Maitreya, whose miracle-working is evident in every strata of writing about him by his followers :-<BR/><BR/>‘Such wells have been created by Maitreya all over the world — one in Germany, a place called Nordenau where thousands of people have taken the water, and one north of New Delhi where suddenly an empty well gushed this water, which was found to have miraculous healing properties.’<BR/><BR/>Maitreya appeared to not just 12 people or 500 people, but 12 TIMES 500 people, or 6000 people.<BR/><BR/>‘He appeared ‘out of the blue’ on the 11th of June, 1988, in Nairobi, Kenya, before 6,000 people. One moment he wasn’t there, the next moment he was standing beside the woman dressed in blue. Her name is Mary Akatsa.’<BR/><BR/>Gosh, Christians would kill for evidence like this!<BR/><BR/>Yet this Maitreya does not even exist, although the 'evidence' for him is a thousand times stronger than the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30256954017385214102008-11-07T21:16:00.000+00:002008-11-07T21:16:00.000+00:00I also wonder what Stephen does with verses like1 ...I also wonder what Stephen does with verses like<BR/>1 Corinthians 2:7-8 -<BR/> None of the RULERS of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have CRUCIFIED the Lord of glory.<BR/>1 Thessalonians 2:14-16:<BR/>the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. <BR/><BR/>where Paul does explicitly say who killed Jesus.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69246413920358734272008-11-07T20:43:00.000+00:002008-11-07T20:43:00.000+00:00Steven Carr,I'll repeat what I said:"Your portraya...Steven Carr,<BR/>I'll repeat what I said:<BR/>"Your portrayal of Romans 13 as a bare causal "solution" to the theodicy problem ignores the motif of martyrdom in chapter 8."<BR/><BR/>this will make it clear to all who are reading that you are indeed ignoring the motif.Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13194661508498825103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-34728942986455892712008-11-07T11:30:00.000+00:002008-11-07T11:30:00.000+00:00Galatians 3:27'You are all sons of God through fai...Galatians 3:27<BR/>'You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.'<BR/><BR/>I suppose that is being like Muslims saying they were clothed with Muhammad. <BR/><BR/>Paul seemed to believe in a physical Jesus the way Benjamin Creme believes in a physical Maitreya.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9901706755194147502008-11-07T10:28:00.000+00:002008-11-07T10:28:00.000+00:00sam - Tacitus etc.Well I wasnt intending question...sam - Tacitus etc.<BR/><BR/>Well I wasnt intending question begging so lets have another go.,,<BR/><BR/>Tacitus as evidence of historical Jesus depends on knowing where he got his info from. Was it from Roman sources, say via Pilate (in which case I agree it is a plus) or was it simply from talking to, or listening to rumours about, Christians. If it is the latter then I don't think it is as strong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-68619344641818908322008-11-07T06:29:00.000+00:002008-11-07T06:29:00.000+00:00"Put on Christ" is used to refer to baptism. Paul ..."Put on Christ" is used to refer to baptism. Paul uses the same term in<BR/>Galatians 3:27.I recall reading it in a commentary on Romans sometime.<BR/>But Stephen if Paul didn't believe in a physical Jesus, why does he say he is descended from David?MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-81848117316479638112008-11-07T06:14:00.000+00:002008-11-07T06:14:00.000+00:00'"Putting on Christ" comes from a baptismal liturg...'"Putting on Christ" comes from a baptismal liturgy where a person took off their clothes, dunked themselves in water, and after they came out they put on a new garment.'<BR/><BR/>Really? There is no mention of baptism in Romans 13.<BR/><BR/>Where is this liturgy described by early Christians as 'putting on Christ'?<BR/><BR/>And Christians still claim that when Paul said rulers hold no terrors for those who are innocent, he simply didn't mean it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>He actually meant they stripped, whipped, flogged, mocked and crucified the Son of God.<BR/><BR/>When somebody says 'There are no elephants in the room', there could be an elephant in the room.<BR/><BR/>People rarely talk strictly literally.<BR/><BR/>And descended from David according to the flesh, is a strange way of saying somebody was born recently.<BR/><BR/>Paul never seems to write of Jesus as being anybody anyone had ever met.<BR/><BR/>It seems that Jesus was as much a historical person to Paul as the Maitreya is a historical person to Benjamin Creme.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-46339194922116457532008-11-07T03:12:00.000+00:002008-11-07T03:12:00.000+00:00I'm kind of disappointed with your comments here S...I'm kind of disappointed with your comments here Stephen<BR/><BR/> "Putting on Christ" comes from a baptismal liturgy where a person took off their clothes, dunked themselves in water, and after they came out they put on a new garment.It was to symbolise a spiritual act of being joined to the body of Christ . Yes, this isn't literal but figuratively and spiritually speaking.<BR/>I really don't see how Paul using a metaphor helps your case any.<BR/>And you do ignore all the instances where Paul clearly says Jesus was physical (like Romans 1 where he clearly says "[Jesus] who was DESCENDED FROM DAVID according TO THE FLESH")MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.com