Denying the Existence of Jesus

[Daniel Peterson]

You're heartily welcome.

But now to something much less interesting:

I was very unhappy about my involvement in yesterday

[WalkerW]

I didn

[Daniel Peterson]

Shamelessly self-promoting in regards to Mormon Times, absolutely. But who can blame him?

When I publish something, I want people to read it.

I suspect that I'm not the only author who feels that way.

Alas, I am left saddened: three years+ is a long time.

Well, it's not quite as bad as it sounds. One part of the problem is that there are two other books that I want to get out before, to set the stage for that one. They're all part of my fiendish plan.

And, oh yes, there was another response to this thread that I wanted to mention at the end of the long post above:

An apparently very young poster over at that Other Board claims over and over again (he's been doing this for two or three years now) that everything I do is confined to, and only counts in, and is dictated by my confinement to, Provo. (Including, somehow, this thread.) Sometimes, I wish that were true. I've scarcely been in Provo for the past three months. Or in Utah, for that matter. I've been altogether out of the country fully half that time. And the traveling, though fun in its way, has grown a bit tiresome. Many years ago, I never would have thought it possible to grow weary of traveling. But it's definitely possible.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeonaPlate

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I enjoyed the book quite a bit. Left me wanting more.

[Mortal Man]

But, other than scribbling in the dust,

Even that is unlikely, since the Pericope Adulterae is not original to John.

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."

This isn't too surprising for the historical Jesus, since the vast majority of his followers were illiterate. It stands in stark contrast though, to the Jesus of 3 Nephi 23.

[Mortal Man]

And you know this . . . how, exactly?

From a careful reading of the texts, and a little Greek left over from my mission.

Here's a nice essay on the question:

http://www.leaderu.c...docs/tomb2.html

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

Other than a pile of unsupported assumptions, I found nothing in that article to suggest that Paul was aware of either the empty tomb or the wounds in Jesus' resurrected body.

Don't you think it's a bit odd that Peter and James et al. would leave those details out of the little creed they delivered to him?

Keep googling.

[volgadon]

This isn't too surprising for the historical Jesus, since the vast majority of his followers were illiterate. It stands in stark contrast though, to the Jesus of 3 Nephi 23.

How exactly?

[rockslider]

Dan,

Hey friend, I hope your headache is better. In sincerity, please consider this statement:

DCP thinks every hill is worth dying on.

(dblagent007)

It

[Ceeboo]

Good day Dr. Dan,

Although I will probably never understand how, or why these threads seem to cleary and cinsistently evolve in the bizarre direction that they do, I wanted to let you know that I believe your efforts on these boards are enormously important to many of your LDS brethren. I (A non-LDS), for one, greatly admire/respect/and appreciate the clear stance you take in defending what you hold as most precious indeed.

IMHO, you are a very good and decent man Dr. Dan.

Peace and God bless,

Ceeboo

[Daniel Peterson]

So they missed you, eh, LOAP? Well, I wouldn't be buying any unripe bananas, if I were you.

Tough luck about the lady they thought was your kindergarten teacher. But the one they got instead probably deserved it, too. Collateral damage.

I hadn't noticed that "the narrator" had actually been banned. I thought he'd just quit (with his "I'm done here").

I found nothing in that article to suggest that Paul was aware of either the empty tomb or the wounds in Jesus' resurrected body.

Don't you think it's a bit odd that Peter and James et al. would leave those details out of the little creed they delivered to him?

No.

The data seem to me to leave the matter undetermined whether they knew of the empty tomb or the wounds or not. The NT facts are consistent with your preferred theory, but they're compatible with mine, too.

DCP thinks every hill is worth dying on.

Actually, I don't. That's why I completely ignore most threads on this board, and that's why I respond on only a few threads here and on no threads anywhere else.

But I think that the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is worth defending. And when the subject of this thread turned so sharply and quickly to my alleged lack of integrity, I thought my character worth defending, as well.

I will never plead guilty to something I didn't do. Never. It's a matter of principle.

Thanks, rockslider, for the good wishes. And, ceeboo, I really appreciate the kind compliments.

[rockslider]

I have to admit, I was disappointed that you did not have a witty response to the head plug.

However, your pm box is full, and I

[LeSellers]

This isn't too surprising for the historical Jesus, since the vast majority of his followers were illiterate.

I dispute this.

His followers were Jewish (aside from a few Gentiles). While it is possible that many Jewish women did not learn to read and write, it is also true that very few Jewish men were not literate because it was incumbent on their fathers to assure they were. We might use Jesus Himself as an example. He could write and read yet He was of a small family in an insignificant village. The elite of His day accused Him of "having never learned [letters]". His step father taught Him, as all good fathers should, of whatever religion or status.

You might object, imagining that His "having never learned [letters]" implies that most boys did not learn letters, and that Jesus was an exception. He was not.

There is a passage in the Mishnah (Aboth. v. 21), which quaintly maps out and, as it were, labels the different periods of life according to their characteristics. It is worth reproducing, if only to serve as introduction to what we shall have to say on the upbringing of children. Rabbi Jehudah, the son of Tema, says: "At five years of age, reading of the Bible; at ten years, learning the Mishnah; at thirteen years, bound to the commandments; at fifteen years, the study of the Talmud; at eighteen years, marriage; at twenty, the pursuit of trade or business (active life); at thirty years, full vigour; at forty, maturity of reason; at fifty, of counsel; at sixty, commencement of agedness; at seventy, grey age; at eighty, advanced old age; at ninety, bowed down; at a hundred, as if he were dead and gone, and taken from the world." In the passage just quoted the age of five is mentioned as that when a child is expected to commence reading the Bible

[Lars Umlaut]

Anyway, the narrator was evidently banned from the board, so he can't reply here.

Banned from the board or just this thread? Wouldn't his profile say "Banned" if he were banned from the entire board?

[rockslider]

Banned from the board or just this thread? Wouldn't his profile say "Banned" if he were banned from the entire board?

just chatted with him ... its just this thread

[WalkerW]

When I publish something, I want people to read it.

I suspect that I'm not the only author who feels that way.

Your suspicions would be wrong. No real author wants that, just those that have a diabolical agenda. The fact that you are an evil, baby-eating Mopologist demonstrates that your intentions are nothing but sinister.

[Mortal Man]

(I

[Mortal Man]

How exactly?

Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels apparently had zero interest in writing anything down.

By contrast, Jesus in 3 Nephi 23 seems obsessed with writing everything down.

He commands the people to "write the things which I have told you;" he scolds them for not having written the "other scriptures", he chastises them for not bothering to write about Samuel's preaching concerning the risen saints, and then he commands them again to write it all down post-haste.

[volgadon]

As we shall show in the sequel, six or seven was the age at which a parent in Palestine was legally bound to attend to the schooling of his son.

Edersheim got that wrong.

[Mortal Man]

The data seem to me to leave the matter undetermined whether they knew of the empty tomb or the wounds or not. The NT facts are consistent with your preferred theory, but they're compatible with mine, too.

Suppose you found a 17^th-century book on American government, which made numerous claims regarding the judiciary system but failed to mention the presidency or congress. Would you say that the data in the book were consistent with the theory that the author was aware of these institutions?

I have a simple rule of thumb.

If the timeline of a series of alleged events matches the order in which they enter the historical record, then I tend to believe the story.

If the foundational events are reported out of order many decades later, after a body of believers has been established, then I tend to think that the story was made up after the fact.

BTW, you've been hinting for quite some time about some remarkable new evidence for the resurrection. If you've got something up your sleeve, don't you think you ought to show it now, rather than wait while more souls slip into apostasy? What is this new proof of the resurrection? Come on, out with it.

[rockslider]

BrainGate

[Daniel Peterson]

Suppose you found a 17^th-century book on American government, which made numerous claims regarding the judiciary system but failed to mention the presidency or congress. Would you say that the data in the book were consistent with the theory that the author was aware of these institutions?

Not a valid comparison.

I have a simple rule of thumb.

If the timeline of a series of alleged events matches the order in which they enter the historical record, then I tend to believe the story.

If the foundational events are reported out of order many decades later, after a body of believers has been established, then I tend to think that the story was made up after the fact.

You plainly have much more confidence in the completeness of the ancient-historical evidence than I do.

BTW, you've been hinting for quite some time about some remarkable new evidence for the resurrection.

No I haven't.

If you've got something up your sleeve, don't you think you ought to show it now, rather than wait while more souls slip into apostasy? What is this new proof of the resurrection? Come on, out with it.

I have nothing up my sleeve. I simply plan to assemble an argument using publicly available data that I find persuasive.

Why, though, are you always so belligerently, sneeringly confrontational toward me? Why does this post come across with something of the tone of a challenging bull-elk? Is it a consciously-chosen stance, or merely a reflex?

[Walden]

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

.

From what I have studied, I lean more towards a scenario in which Jesus of Nazareth, being a wise man, had a small group of followers, who after his death deified the man. This is not to take away anything from some of the very wise ideas allegedly espoused by the man, but rather, what the logical, rational study of the atmosphere of that time and place leads to, in my opinion. At the time, there were a number of "holy" men and/or "wise" men living rather nomadic, semi-ascetic existences, supported by their followers and preaching what can only be described as eccentric, quasi-Judaism teachings.

[Uncle Dale]

From what I have studied, I lean more towards a scenario in which

Jesus of Nazareth, being a wise man, had a small group of followers

...

I think you're onto something there. Burton L. Mack (my favorite writer

on this topic) sees the earliest Jesus-followers as resembling the

Hellenistic Cynics. The word had better connotations 2000 years ago.

A Jesus following that combined Cynic philosophy with Jewish practices

might have made sense in Galilee, where cultures overlapped.

At least I'm open to such ideas.

UD

[Mortal Man]

Why, though, are you always so belligerently, sneeringly confrontational toward me? Why does this post come across with something of the tone of a challenging bull-elk? Is it a consciously-chosen stance, or merely a reflex?

No belligerence or sneers intended. Sometimes I just like to rattle your cage a bit to see if you'll roar. It gets boring when you just lie there.

Furthermore, since you and Uncle Dale are the only omniscient members of this board, I'm naturally interested in your opinions. Unfortunately, UD has recently fallen prey to a hoarde of Spaulding-Rigdon zombies (speaking of proofs of the resurrection...), which leaves only you.