Denying the Existence of Jesus

[rockslider]

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.

That darn recurring pain in the eye, ya might want to see someone about that.

[Daniel Peterson]

That darn recurring pain in the eye, ya might want to see someone about that.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread, rockslider. It was important that you drop by.

[rockslider]

Thanks for your contribution to the thread, rockslider. It was important that you drop by.

anytime, good to see you home for a bit

[volgadon]

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"?

Because, not to put too fine a point on it, mentioning an empty tomb after someone had risen is stating the obvious. Painfuly and excruciatingly so.

[Daniel Peterson]

From the Department of Residual Trivia. Here's a nice, neat, clear, albeit minor and unusually innocent and relatively non-malignant, example of the way my Malevolent Stalker routinely distorts things I say:

I like Fox News.

That was from earlier on this thread.

Now for the Stalker's expanded version, subtly spun just a few minutes ago on the Stalker Board:

Dr. P. said rather unequivocally that he relies on and "likes" FOX News's brand of coverage

I watch Fox News, it's true. And MSNBC and CNN. And I regularly read several newspapers and subscribe to too many news and opinion magazines. But, presumably because he knows how any mention of Fox News will play among the members of his preponderantly left-leaning fan base, the Stalker ratchets my liking Fox News up to my supposedly relying on Fox News.

In characterizing my political views, too, he mentions that, also earlier on this thread, I mentioned being an admirer of William F. Buckley. He takes that to mean that my self-description as a quasi-libertarian is a lie. (I lie pretty much constantly all day, in the Stalker's demonology.) He doesn't mention the fact that I also mentioned my admiration for Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek. Nor does he mention that Buckley himself had pronounced libertarian tendencies -- something of which one of the Stalker's brighter and substantially less subservient board colleagues eventually reminds him. I suppose I should mention that, while an undergraduate, I won two essay contests in the field of political economy -- one in honor of Adam Smith, the other in honor of Ludwig von Mises. (Those who know much about economics, and particularly about the Austrian school, will understand approximately where that places me.)

[Mortal Man]

Because, not to put too fine a point on it, mentioning an empty tomb after someone had risen is stating the obvious. Painfuly and excruciatingly so.

Obvious to whom? It is certainly not obvious from anything Paul wrote that the very same body that hung on the cross came forth from the tomb. To Paul, the resurrection was a purely spiritual thing.

1 Cor. 15:

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

...

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

The empty tomb scenario was invented by Mark some 20 years later in an effort to appeal to Jews awaiting a bodily resurrection.

Matthew, Luke and John were intrigued by the story and ran wild with it.

[Uncle Dale]

...

The empty tomb scenario was invented by Mark some 20 years later

...

Possibly so -- but the writer of Mark may have heard some of the

passion story from earlier Jesus followers and have been merely

passing along what he believed to be true.

The crucifixion, tomb, resurrection, etc. are barely hinted at

in the "Q" texts -- perhaps some mention of a cross, etc. If the

passion narrative and the resurrection story were not important

enough to influence "Q," we can at least speculate that they were

not the central points of importance to the first disciples.

That makes for a very strange Jesus story -- one most of us are

unfamiliar with and unprepared to hear.

But, other than scribbling in the dust, the biblical Jesus doesn't

write a word for posterity -- leaves no intentional mark upon the

ancient landscape -- never scrawls on the wall the 1st century

equivalent of "Kilroy was here." If it is left to the biblical Jesus,

on his own, he appears to have no interest in making certain that

history will remember him.

UD

.

[Daniel Peterson]

Obvious to whom? It is certainly not obvious from anything Paul wrote that the very same body that hung on the cross came forth from the tomb. To Paul, the resurrection was a purely spiritual thing.

That's one interpretation of what he says. It's certainly not the only one.

The empty tomb scenario was invented by Mark some 20 years later in an effort to appeal to Jews awaiting a bodily resurrection.

Matthew, Luke and John were intrigued by the story and ran wild with it.

And you know this . . . how, exactly?

Here's a nice essay on the question:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

One of many that could be cited. (It just happens to be the first one I googled.)

[sethpayne]

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.

Thanks for the insight, Chris.

I had no idea that gnostic-like ideas were forming in Judaism before Christianity. Do you have any books/articles on this subject that you would recommend?

[Chris Smith]

I had no idea that gnostic-like ideas were forming in Judaism before Christianity. Do you have any books/articles on this subject that you would recommend?

Gnosticism and the New Testament by Pheme Perkins is pretty good.

[Ariarates]

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

The confusion could have been avoided had you just opened a thread about the topic you wanted to discuss. Something as simple as "Some people say Jesus never existed, what do you think? " would probably have done the trick. And it would have allowed you to plug your Mormon Times article just the same (which I consider a welcome variation to your usual "Mormon Scholars Testify still dead" ploy to get attention).

[volgadon]

(which I consider a welcome variation to your usual "Mormon Scholars Testify still dead" ploy to get attention).

Speaking of which, I just saw that my favourite district president of all time's testimony is up!!!!!!!! Gary L. Browning released me when I got home from my mission. He also is the one that gave my fiancee her patriarchal blessing, not only is Browning utterly brilliant regarding all things Russian, but also a humble and devoted servant of the Saviour, and has brought many closer to him.

[Uncle Dale]

Speaking of which...

Not to cast a cloud upon your joy here -- but since we're already

so far off-topic, has anybody ever considered the fact, that with

each increase in numbers, the testifiers will also increase their

chances that one or more among their number will drop out?

I can envision two lists of problematic web-postings in the not

so distant future:

1. Former testifiers who have removed their on-line testimonies.

2. Noted LDS who have yet to testify, and who show no signs of

ever posting any testimonies.

Today that may seem an unlikely problem -- but in the future....

UD

[WalkerW]

I watch Fox News, it's true. And MSNBC and CNN. And I regularly read several newspapers and subscribe to too many news and opinion magazines. But, presumably because he knows how any mention of Fox News will play among the members of his preponderantly left-leaning fan base, the Stalker ratchets my liking Fox News up to my supposedly relying on Fox News.

I thought I already covered this when I called you a "racist, tea-bagging redneck" due to your obvious love affair with "Faux News." (Reminds me of the childish LD$, Inc.)

In characterizing my political views, too, he mentions that, also earlier on this thread, I mentioned being an admirer of William F. Buckley. He takes that to mean that my self-description as a quasi-libertarian is a lie. (I lie pretty much constantly all day, in the Stalker's demonology.) He doesn't mention the fact that I also mentioned my admiration for Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek. Nor does he mention that Buckley himself had pronounced libertarian tendencies -- something of which one of the Stalker's brighter and substantially less subservient board colleagues eventually reminds him. I suppose I should mention that, while an undergraduate, I won two essay contests in the field of political economy -- one in honor of Adam Smith, the other in honor of Ludwig von Mises. (Those who know much about economics, and particularly about the Austrian school, will understand approximately where that places me.)

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is one of my regular reading sources.

.

[volgadon]

due to your obvious love affair with "Faux News." (Reminds me of the childish LD$, Inc.)

And both only work as sight (screen?) gags.

Personally, I dislike Fox News, but many people I love and respect like it. A man's a man for a' that!

[Daniel Peterson]

The confusion could have been avoided had you just opened a thread about the topic you wanted to discuss. Something as simple as "Some people say Jesus never existed, what do you think? " would probably have done the trick. And it would have allowed you to plug your Mormon Times article just the same

Thanks for your advice. I suppose I should get somebody wise like you, who understands these things, someone of better character and sounder personality, to write my posts for me. The opening of my opening post was, indeed, a terrible thing, a stench in the nostrils of decent folk everywhere, and certainly merited four or five pages of criticism. Perhaps I should be euthanized, but I just can't quite get myself in the mood to go to the vet. Would you be willing to drive me?

(which I consider a welcome variation to your usual "Mormon Scholars Testify still dead" ploy to get attention).

You're very patient to put up with me. I'm genuinely grateful for it.

Incidentally, "Mormon Scholars Testify" is doing rather well. I like Gary Browning's testimony a lot, for example. And there are some good ones in the pipeline, too.

Just avert your gaze, Ariarates. Hold your nose. Sing a favorite ditty. Think of England. Surely there must be at least one or two things in your universe more wearisome and noxious than I am.

[Walden]

The confusion could have been avoided had you just opened a thread about the topic you wanted to discuss. Something as simple as "Some people say Jesus never existed, what do you think? " would probably have done the trick. And it would have allowed you to plug your Mormon Times article just the same (which I consider a welcome variation to your usual "Mormon Scholars Testify still dead" ploy to get attention).

Agreed.....but how to work in the obsession with the stalker that seems to accompany almost every post?

Regarding the original post about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, I am an atheist who believes that such a man did actually exist, though I obviously don't buy his claims of divinity. As is true with many believers, I think that atheists often go overboard in their zeal to bring down their ideological enemies, and thus overextend their argument.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I am an atheist who believes that such a man did actually exist,

though I obviously don't buy his claims of divinity.

...

Interesting.

Do you suppose he actually claimed to be a god,

or that people at a later date added such claims

to his original self-description/views?

UD

.

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed.....but how to work in the obsession with the stalker that seems to accompany almost every post?

I didn't see any reference to the stalker in the opening post. The message board the stalker frequents wasn't even clearly identified. The uproar from that board over what really is a minor and peripheral point indicates that it is they, not Mormons, who have the persecution complex.

[Daniel Peterson]

Agreed.....but how to work in the obsession with the stalker that seems to accompany almost every post?

"Almost every post"?

Prove it.

Find a reference to the Stalker in the opening post of this thread, for example. Go ahead. Try.

Regarding the original post about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, I am an atheist who believes that such a man did actually exist, though I obviously don't buy his claims of divinity. As is true with many believers, I think that atheists often go overboard in their zeal to bring down their ideological enemies, and thus overextend their argument.

Thank you for writing something about the subject of the thread.

[WalkerW]

Thank you for writing something about the subject of the thread.

I find Richard Bauckham's recent work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony to be pretty convincing that there was at least a historical Jesus and people really believed he rose from the dead. I was always slightly unconvinced by the arguments of Habermas and Craig, mainly because if one was under the impression that the Gospels were the product of legend that developed overtime, then their arguments didn't seem all that weighty to me. But after reading Bauckham's work, their arguments became all the more powerful.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yes. I should have mentioned Bauckham's excellent book. I recommend it, too.

[WalkerW]

Yes. I should have mentioned Bauckham's excellent book. I recommend it, too.

Now that I think about it, I think I heard about it from you. You mentioned it in your response to Hitchen's book, but only briefly. I now own it and my interest in historical Jesus scholarship has been increasing ever since.

That presentation of yours actually sent me in a few directions. I've read Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God and The Victory of Reason largely due to it (the notion that Christianity helped give rise to science is what led me to these). Increased my interest as a whole in the history of Christianity within the secular development of the West.

So...I guess a 'thank you' is in order.

[Nevo]

WalkerW,

Given your stated interest "in the history of Christianity within the secular development of the West," if you haven't already, I strongly recommend you pick up David Bentley Hart's Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale, 2009). I think you'd enjoy it. Don't be put off by the title: it's not mere polemic. It's actually an excellent historical primer and corrective to the prevailing popular understanding of Christian history.

I notice LOAP reviewed the book on his blog. You can read one of Hart's more peppery pieces here.

[WalkerW]

WalkerW,

Given your stated interest "in the history of Christianity within the secular development of the West," if you haven't already, I strongly recommend you pick up David Bentley Hart's Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale, 2009). I think you'd enjoy it. Don't be put off by the title: it's not a mere polemic. It's actually an excellent historical primer and corrective to the prevailing popular understanding of Christian history.

I notice LOAP reviewed the book on his blog. You can read one of Hart's more peppery pieces here.

Thank you. I will browse my college's library for it tomorrow. I've actually read that article before. I enjoyed it, especially the reference to the pet rock.

Update: They have it. Will be picking it up soon. Have some other books I have to get through.