Denying the Existence of Jesus

[Cold Steel]

Nor do I.

Here are some logical possibilities.

1. Jesus existed, but never claimed to be the Jewish messiah

This would beg the question as to how he came to be associated with the Messiah.

2. Somebody claimed to be Messiah, the name "Jesus" got attached to him

But what would this solve?

3. There is a Messiah, but his name is not Jesus

That would be a reasonable alternative, but then, who is the Messiah?

4. We misunderstand messiahship and are making an erroneous equation

This is a popular response with modern Jews. One of the reasons Jesus was not able to maintain a momentum with the Jews of his day was that he was not showing any of the military attributes the Jews expected of their Messiah. Many of them witnessed Jesus' miracles and became excited, thinking that he would mobilize the people and lead them in a revolt against Rome. Judas, who was a Zealot, may have been motivated into betraying Jesus by thinking he would force a confrontation that wasn't coming fast enough for him. When Jesus was crucified, Judas committed suicide.

5. Jesus existed, but acted out the role of the expected messiah

On the contrary, he did not act out the expected role of the Messiah. One of the things that have always impressed me about Joseph Smith was that he made prophecies that would be tough for anyone to fulfill. Then he did it. Jesus stayed far away from the military expectations of the Jews, yet he applied the scriptures in the Old Testament to himself in a way that showed unusual understanding. In doing so, he showed there were other aspects to the Messiah than the one the Jews had focused on (see Isaiah 53).

6. Jesus the son of Mary is indeed God's "anointed one"

Bingo.

[Daniel Peterson]

Something we have in common. Want to get some ice cream now?

Not a chance.

I was just interested in why you claimed that "FOR THE MOST PART" posters on that thread "CONFIDENTLY DECLARED" that Jesus did not exist.

Because, when I looked over the thread, that's the way it seemed to me.

And it doesn't seem very important to me, one way or the other. Nothing, absolutely nothing, hinges upon this claim.

Except, now, that you've tried to make it a revealing test of my character, which I find both risible and insulting.

If it was a simple error based on a hasty glance over the post, then fine. I'm totally cool with that.

It was an impression. If it was in error, it wasn't by much. As I've shown.

You introduced crude statistical analysis. I thought it rather funny, and beside the point, but I've responded in kind. It's too late for you to find statistical reasoning "absurd" in this context.

However, the absurd lengths you are going to defend your initial claim makes me feel that it wasn't a simple error based on a hasty glance.

When you suggest, quite explicitly, that I intentionally misrepresented the thread in order to exploit it as a "provocation" so that I could score some points, you forfeit the fig leaf of pretending that you're really saying that it was probably just a simple error based on a hasty glance.

When you're accusing me of deliberate (though utterly and completely pointless) intent to deceive, don't be disingenuous. Don't try to pretend that you're not.

A hasty skim also shows that your hasty skim is already inaccurate. For example you claim "3) Yes, he existed, but the accounts aren't accurate." Go back and read what #3 actually said.

I'll do ti for you. He says:

Where does he say that the accounts aren't accurate? While this may not affect your following work as a mathemagician [sic], it still makes me wonder why you through the misrepresentation in. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of making a hasty mistake--we are human and do it all the time.

I happily admit that I didn't summarize his statement correctly. I was in a hurry; I've got other things to do. (I don't seem to have as much time as you do for pondering that Other Thread, which has never been of any particular relevance to me, and I certainly have less interest in it than you have.) But, as you admit, it doesn't affect the numerical value that I assigned to that post. Not even slightly. Which means that my point remains entirely intact.

Incidentally, it's really cute of you to mention my "misrepresentation" of the statement, and to breezily wonder, yet again, at my purpose for misrepresenting it, before tossing in your afterthought about "a hasty mistake." That's a very fine example of rhetorical, if not logical, poisoning of the well.

Why are you doing this? I don't get it. Did I snarl at you from the panel at USC? Were you offended at something I said during the discussion?

Perhaps you forgot that you claimed that "FOR THE MOST PART" posters on that thread "CONFIDENTLY DECLARED" that Jesus did not exist. You can problematically attempt to set varying weights for each comment and try to mathemagically defend your claim. However, you did not say "based on an arbitrary system of measures on a thread that I happened to come upon, a simple majority of posters cumulatively deny the existence of Jesus." Instead, you said that "FOR THE MOST PART" posters on that thread "CONFIDENTLY DECLARED" that Jesus did not exist.

I had never before taken you for a hyperliteralist. My apologies.

I've explained myself on this matter more than enough, I think. If you weren't so hell-bent on trying to attack me for an insignificant throwaway line or two in a casual message board post about an entirely unrelated subject -- a crusade that, for the life of me, I can't fathom -- you would have gotten it long ago.

Furthermore, both you and I know that your mathemagics is a mere game that doesn't hold an ounce of mustard on a day-old 7-11 cheese-filled bratwurst.

The accusation of dishonesty and insincerity is much more subtle here than elsewhere in your work on this thread, but it's still unmistakably present.

I wish I knew what was driving this. I find it genuinely bizarre.

In my original reaction, in which I was trying to be charitable, I simply said:

It was only after your overtly defensive response and defense of your OP, that I became dismissive and skeptical.

I've found your persistence in this campaign of yours increasingly weird and inexplicable, and my responses, though seriously intended, have also been playful to this point. That's the way I am. (The mathematical stuff makes a serious point, but also, I thought rather gently, jests at your ratios and your insistence on quantifiable demonstration for something that, I've been pains to point out, wasn't really a statement of quantification.)

I was also, to be candid, seeking to prevent the burning of the tenuous bridge that I thought had been established between us. But I now believe that, for reasons best known to yourself, burning that bridge is something that you're quite willing to do over this, and, even, something that you're intending to do. (Your reasons for today's performance are certainly opaque to me.)

I know the standard routine. Appeal to dictionary terms (and if that doesn't work, etymologically close words) to claim that what was said was not what was meant.

Insinuation of dishonesty noted, yet again.

I said what I meant. I don't take it back. The posts on the Other Thread did indeed provoke me -- they were the provocation -- to open this thread here. But only in the sense of Hebrews 10:24: "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works." I was not even slightly angry at emilysmith (I have no idea who she is, and have never read a line by her before) or at anybody else over at the Other Thread, and I said nothing in my opening post to suggest otherwise. They were not, and have never been, the issue, despite your frankly strange crusade to make them so.

I say the wrong things all the time too.

Quite. You've been doing it all day today.

your opening "Sheesh" to respond to me set the tone for everything else.

I was already tired of this non-issue when you came along as the fourth poster on this young thread who, distracting from the thread's actual topic, addressed this peripheral irrelevancy instead.

I'm not obsessing.

You're doing a very good imitation, then.

At first I was just trying to understand why you opened the OP in the way in which you did

You've been pretty free with your explanation that I was deliberately seeking to deceive in order to score a victory over the demonized "Other," who had, apparently, enraged me. It's odd to see you now claiming that you were merely curious about my supposed motivation.

now I'm just trying to understand why you are strongly defending what could/should have just been admitted as being a hasty over-generalization.

One of my main points in responding to you, which you've apparently failed to grasp, has been that, if I was wrong, it wasn't by very much, and it didn't really matter because nothing depended upon it being precisely accurate. The opening post was a casual message board note, designed primarily to share a link -- something that you have managed to completely obscure as you've taken over the thread for your weird campaign.

Oh yeah. And I'm done here.

We're done. Very much so.

[Uncle Dale]

This would beg the question as to how he came to be associated with the Messiah.

No need to beg any questions. You approach Moses, when the Spirit of

God has come upon him and gives you commandments through Moses. You

reply, "Yes, Lord God, I will obey."

We watch you in that situation and yell out: "No! No! Moses is not Lord!"

In Moses' day no Davidic Kings had yet ruled in Israel and so there was

no expectation of the need for God to restore that kingship. But move

Moses ahead in time, and repeat the commandments. You reply, "Yes,

Son of David, I will obey."

We watch you in that situation and yell out: "No! No! Moses is not David's Son!"

But what would this solve?

We are not talking about solving anything. We are talking about the logical

possibilities that any rational person might think of, when for the first

time he hears the assertion, "Jesus is the Christ." As that rational person

considers each of the possibilities, he will probably begin to discard some

of them as inappropriate or negated. But first of all, he must organize his

thoughts, in order to understand what might be meant by that assertion.

Perhaps Bar Kochba claimed to be Messiah and the name "Jesus" was attached

to his role in the Jewish rebellion --- or, perhaps not. But that is one

sort of logical possibility the new investigator might consider.

That would be a reasonable alternative, but then, who is the Messiah?

Might as well ask, who Isaiah's "suffering servant" is -- or who Daniel's

"son of man" is. The rabbis have an answer -- it is the entire body

of the Lord's faithful. It is the remnant of Israel's saints.

This is a popular response with modern Jews.

Indeed -- I just provided one Jewish answer -- that messiah is a

joint heirship involving/including all who are made righteous

by Israel's God.

One of the reasons Jesus was not able to maintain a momentum with the Jews

of his day was that he was not showing any of the military attributes the

Jews expected of their Messiah.

Some expected that the Kingdom of Heaven could only be established

after the Roman occupiers were expelled -- or after some great series

of world-changing events. The Qumranim expected two messiahs, one

priestly and one kingly. Their concept of a priestly messiah would

have been familiar to the first Jesus followers. Their concept of

a kingly messiah would probably have been more familiar to Zealots.

Many of them witnessed Jesus' miracles and became excited, thinking

that he would mobilize the people and lead them in a revolt against Rome.

Perhaps so -- but I doubt that he allowed much of that sort of talk

among his closest followers. And it was the duty of those disciples

to spread the word that God's Kingdom was not of this earth.

On the other hand, it might be argued that he taught people to live

and treat each other AS THOUGH their expected messiah had already

arrived -- as though Isaiah's Peaceable Kingdom was already a fact.

No more procrastinating -- no more excuses -- no more exclusion of

the nations -- no more anticipating future gifts of the Spirit.

Judas, who was a Zealot, may have been motivated into betraying Jesus

by thinking he would force a confrontation that wasn't coming fast

enough for him. When Jesus was crucified, Judas committed suicide.

Perhaps so -- or perhaps the story we have heard is incomplete or

even faulty. How did he die? Looks to me like there are problems

in the preserved stories. We may be misunderstanding Judas, because

soon after the crucifixion many of the Jesus followers themselves

did not understand the role he played in the passion narrative.

On the contrary, he did not act out the expected role of the Messiah.

Depends upon what version of messiahship a Jew of 2000 years ago

was expecting. If that Jew had read Isaiah and the other prophets

carefully, then St. Matthew's telling of the story would have been

very familiar -- each prophetic prediction is fulfilled in proper

sequence, but in unexpected ways. Who would have expected Jesus

to enter Jerusalem seated upon a lowly donkey -- when the Davidic

kings rode upon richly caparisoned royal white mules, or in

magnificent chariots, surrounded by hundreds of armed guards?

One of the things that have always impressed me about Joseph Smith was

that he made prophecies that would be tough for anyone to fulfill. Then

he did it. Jesus stayed far away from the military expectations of the

Jews, yet he applied the scriptures in the Old Testament to himself in a

way that showed unusual understanding. In doing so, he showed there were

other aspects to the Messiah than the one the Jews had focused on (see Isaiah 53).

I'm not much impressed by anything that Smith ever did -- but that's

a discussion for another thread.

Uncle Dale

.

[Daniel Peterson]

In deference to the narrator and the three others who found the periphery of the opening post so fascinating that they successfully destroyed this thread, I'm going to revise the opening post in such a way as to delete the portions that offended their sensibilities. Here is how it originally read:

Over on another board, a group of apostates are discussing the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth really existed. For the most part, they're quite confidently declaring that he probably didn't.

This is, I think, plain nonsense, and I'm not aware of (m)any reputable historians, Christian or not, who would agree with them.

Coincidentally, I addressed such declarations -- though, obviously, not at all exhaustively; there's much more to be said, and I intend to discuss it in a future book -- in my most recent column for Mormon Times:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/15047/Capernaum-bears-witness-of-Christ

I just thought, given the provocation, that I would call attention to the little piece that I wrote.

Here is a sanitized new version of it:

Somewhere else, some no doubt very fine and admirable people are discussing the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth really existed. A certain proportion of them -- someone whom I prefer not to identify hesitates to estimate the percentage, since he or she might not get it precisely right -- seem to be saying that he probably didn't.

This is, some may perhaps think, incorrect, and some may not be aware of (m)any reputable historians, Christian or not, who would agree with them.

Coincidentally, a writer addressed such declarations -- though, obviously, not at all exhaustively; there's much more to be said, and this person may intend to discuss it in a future book -- in a recent column for Mormon Times:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/15047/Capernaum-bears-witness-of-Christ

The thought occurs, since these undoubtedly estimable people are discussing a topic addressed very inadequately in the article referenced above, that it might be okay to call attention to the little piece in Mormon Times.

Very little of the actual substance of the post has been lost in the somewhat ridiculous rewrite.

.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good grief. This thread isn't, and never was, about the precise ratio of disbelievers:believers:doubters in the historicity of Jesus on any specific thread on any specific board -- a ratio, incidentally, that (and this is very germane to your complaint) has changed rather dramatically since I launched this thread. It isn't about any board or thread at all. (Had I wanted it to be about a specific board or thread, I would have specifically identified that specific board or thread.) Yet four of you seem to think that my concern -- certainly it's yours -- is to talk about that specific board or thread. I just don't get it. Why do that?

My unsolicited advice is simply not to mention the other board. I think your article could be of interest to many without the connection.

On a different subject, when are you back in Provo? I haven't seen you around the MI yet.

[Daniel Peterson]

My unsolicited advice is simply not to mention the other board.

LOL. I scarcely did. And, even then, it was only as a kind of chatty narrative introduction. But no matter. That slight and insubstantial allusion metastasized and took over the thread (with the active connivance, of course, of several other posters here).

I think your article could be of interest to many without the connection.

I trust so. In fact, it never occurred to me that "the connection" might possibly make the article of more interest. (As it is, obviously, "the connection" obliterated the article.)

On a different subject, when are you back in Provo? I haven't seen you around the MI yet.

I got back into town on Sunday night, and was in a meeting at the Maxwell Institute all of Monday morning until noon.* Right now, I'm mostly working at home -- I have several deadlines looming -- but I'll be in Provo/Orem until 4 July, when I leave the continent again. (My wife and I are going out to dinner this evening with the Royal Skousens.)

* For my Malevolent Stalker: The door to the room in which we were meeting was closed, but here is a list of the meeting's participants: Napoleon Bonaparte, the CEO of BP, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, **** Cheney, Darth Vader, Ho Chi Minh, the Ghost of Christmas Future, Ugo Perego, a love-child of Hugh Nibley, and Lex Luthor. (The Stalker really feeds on this kind of stuff, and I'm feeling generous.)

.

[sethpayne]

Work on the historical Jesus can be divided into groups of scholars that are often called "quests". The First Quest group starts with scholars like Reimarus in the 1700's and finishes with people like Albert Schweitzer and Rudolph Bultmann. Schweitzer's book from Reimarus to Wrede the Quest for the Historical Jesus is a good coverage of this period. Next came the New Quest people beginning in the 1950's and included good scholarship on the Q gospel and work with the Gospel of Thomas. Notable in this group include James Robinson for his for with Q and the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi. Finally the Third Quest group includes members of the Jesus Seminar and scholars like John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, G

[phaedrus ut]

I like Crossan but I think he dates the Gospel of Thomas far too early.

I'm a fan of Meier and his "Marginal Jew" series myself.

I agree Meier is very good. I'm in the Early Thomas camp myself. I think it clearly pre-dates the synoptic gospels and likely reflects the closest we're going to get to authentic sayings of Jesus, except for the occasionally pauline quotation. However, my judgment may be impaired as the few professors I studied Thomas under were all proponents of early dating.

Edit: *Like Crossan I also agree with early dating for items like The Signs Gospel source for John, The Cross Gospel source for The Gospel of Peter and Q. But not quite as early as he puts them.

Phaedrus

[sethpayne]

I agree Meier is very good. I'm in the Early Thomas camp myself. I think it clearly pre-dates the synoptic gospels and likely reflects the closest we're going to get to authentic sayings of Jesus, except for the occasionally pauline quotation. However, my judgment may be impaired as the few professors I studied Thomas under were all proponents of early dating.

Edit: *Like Crossan I also agree with early dating for items like The Signs Gospel source for John, The Cross Gospel source for The Gospel of Peter and Q. But not quite as early as he puts them.

Phaedrus

I am persuaded by Pagel's interpretation that the Gospel of Thomas was written just prior to the Gospel of John. I'm just skeptical that Gnosticism arose that early in the Church.

However, I do find it interesting that Thomas is the closest thing we have to the theoretical Q.

[Chris Smith]

I am persuaded by Pagel's interpretation that the Gospel of Thomas was written just prior to the Gospel of John. I'm just skeptical that Gnosticism arose that early in the Church.

Gnosticism (or something like it) seems to have originated in Judaism prior to the rise of Christianity. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find Christian gnostics in the first century. But note that Thomas isn't really a full-fledged gnostic text. More like a spiritualizing proto-gnostic text.

[Mortal Man]

People like MM are, sadly, all too real. I have no doubt whatever that they exist.

Furthermore, I have noticed that photos of Dan always appear with the top of his head cropped off.

I think it's pretty obvious that this is where the wires go; note the shaved region around the connection point.

There are days I doubt that I exist. I am merely phantasm in a dream of Shiva. When he awakens, I shall cease to be.

Bill, can you confirm the connection point for us, and the number and colors of the wires?

[Uncle Dale]

...

But note that Thomas isn't really a full-fledged gnostic text.

More like a spiritualizing proto-gnostic text.

That may be so; but its being preserved with full fledged gnostic texts

shows that it served the purposes of at least a few members of that group.

My guess is that the Coptic version is a translation of a Greek text,

which itself was crafted for gnostic purposes out of some earlier

collection evolved from what we call "Q." For some reason all the

intermediate stuff has been lost -- not only physically, but in terms

of how the "Q" sayings were incorporated into the canonical gospels

with no need for apology, or attribution. The community which preserved

"Q" must have been small and in serious decline before the Egyptian

Christian gnostics and before the gospels were written.

An untold story...

UD

[volgadon]

Might as well ask, who Isaiah's "suffering servant" is -- or who Daniel's

"son of man" is. The rabbis have an answer -- it is the entire body

of the Lord's faithful. It is the remnant of Israel's saints.

And some also equated the suffering servant with the Messiah.

Indeed -- I just provided one Jewish answer -- that messiah is a

joint heirship involving/including all who are made righteous

by Israel's God.

Not at all. There are typically 2 messiahs, and some trends hold that there are many who might be the messiah if the time is right.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Not at all.

...

Do you suppose that Paul's development of the Body of Christ precept

was his own innovation -- or that he was taught that by earlier

Jesus followers?

If Paul was merely passing along a doctrine which arose before his

time, then could the "Body of Christ" date back before the crucifixion?

If so, then there is nothing wrong in searching out parallels with

the Jewish ideals of the suffering servant and the son of man --

don't you think?

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Glad to see that somebody's finally talking about the historical Jesus. That was supposed to be the subject of the thread, of course.

LOL. I may or may not be posting here, though. It seems that I've had a total meltdown after revealing my vindictive nature and being totally humiliated by the narrator for my arrogance and lack of ethics, etc., etc. My Malevolent Stalker and his most sycophantic cupbearer, along with a few others, are dissertating on the subject (and drooling over it) on the Stalker Board. What a surprise! How unpredictable their comments are!

Life is good.

[volgadon]

If Paul was merely passing along a doctrine which arose before his

time, then could the "Body of Christ" date back before the crucifixion?

If so, then there is nothing wrong in searching out parallels with

the Jewish ideals of the suffering servant and the son of man --

don't you think?

I think a more profitable avenue is to try and trace the emergence of the traditions identifying the suffering servant with the children of Israel.

[doughboy]

Over on another board, a group of apostates are discussing the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth really existed. For the most part, they're quite confidently declaring that he probably didn't.

Hi, I am Rambo from the other board so to clear up the math I can not confidently say that Jesus did not exist. I actually really do not know enough about the topic.

I'll read your article though and some of the other references that have been given to me. Thanks.

[Uncle Dale]

double post

[Uncle Dale]

Hi, I am Rambo from the other board so to clear up the math I can not confidently say that Jesus did not exist. I actually really do not know enough about the topic.

I'll read your article though and some of the other references that have been given to me. Thanks.

Just as a wild guess -- if there was no Jesus, any idea as to

the approximate date in history when people first believed that

he had indeed existed (or continued to exist supernaturally)?

UD

[doughboy]

Just as a wild guess -- if there was no Jesus, any idea as to

the approximate date in history when people first believed that

he had indeed existed (or continued to exist supernaturally)?

UD

Um.... between 0 to 33 AD I would guess. I actually thought about this point as well and I need to read more about it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Hi, I am Rambo from the other board so to clear up the math I can not confidently say that Jesus did not exist. I actually really do not know enough about the topic.

I'll read your article though and some of the other references that have been given to me. Thanks.

I wish you all the best. If I can be of any help, please contact me at daniel_peterson@byu.edu.

I don't know whether you saw any of the references that I supplied earlier on this thread: I like James D. G. Dunn's approach to the life of Jesus, and there are one or two of his titles that you might find directly helpful on this question. John Meier's series entitled A Marginal Jew is also worthy of attention.

I also like the various works of Stephen Davis, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and N. T. Wright on the specific question of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

[Uncle Dale]

double

[doughboy]

I wish you all the best. If I can be of any help, please contact me at daniel_peterson@byu.edu.

I don't know whether you saw any of the references that I supplied earlier on this thread: I like James D. G. Dunn's approach to the life of Jesus, and there are one or two of his titles that you might find directly helpful on this question. John Meier's series entitled A Marginal Jew is also worthy of attention.

I also like the various works of Stephen Davis, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and N. T. Wright on the specific question of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

Thanks Dan, I will check these references out

[Mortal Man]

Do you suppose that Paul's development of the Body of Christ precept

was his own innovation -- or that he was taught that by earlier

Jesus followers?

If Paul was merely passing along a doctrine which arose before his

time, then could the "Body of Christ" date back before the crucifixion?

While you're at it, why do you suppose that Paul never mentions the empty tomb?

1 Cor. 15:

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

What about Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna and the "other women"?

[Uncle Dale]

While you're at it, why do you suppose that Paul never mentions the empty tomb?

1 Cor. 15:

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

What about Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna and the "other women"?

I'm not totally convinced that there was a "Paul;" though I can

think of no suitable reason why such a character would have been

concocted by the early Jesus followers. The Pseudo-Clementine

texts are directed against Paul -- and it would be strange to

fabricate rebuttals against a fabricated character.

So -- admitting there may indeed have been a Paul, and that at

least a few of the epistles actually came from him, I'm still

left wondering how factual those epistles are.

Did he ever meet the historical Jesus -- or even see him from

a distance? Did he know much about the passion narrative as

later embellished by his biographer, Luke?

And, as you point out -- why does he not mention parallel

stories regarding the tomb, appearances, etc?

I do not know.

I can accept the gospel without Paul -- but I cannot run a

congregation without him. He only becomes a necessity

when we get down to the practicalities of "doing" Christianity.

I'm not a Christian, so that does not bother me much.

UD