- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Who is the Best Candidate for Starting the Jesus Movement?
Even though I think the Christian faith is delusional, I think an apocalyptic prophet named Jesus existed in the first century Palestine who was the founder of the Jesus cult. That’s all he was and nothing more.
I think pure historical studies cannot prove whether Jesus actually existed or not. That someone existed in the past doesn’t mean we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. That someone did not exist in past does not mean we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn’t.
I’ve read the relevant passages in Tacitus (64 AD), Pliny (112 AD), Suetonious (49 AD), Rabbi Eliezer (post 70 AD), the Benediction Twelve (post 70 AD), Josephus (post 70 AD). I’ve read the Christian inscription in Pompeii , too (79 AD). I understand the debates about them. But even a cultic group tradition is based upon something. The majority scholarly consensus is the two-source theory of synoptic gospel tradition (Q and Mark) that predate the Gospels, and that we have early creeds inside Paul's writings (I Cor. 8:6; 12:3; 15:3-4; Galatians 4:4-5; I Tim. 3:16) that predate his letters. There is also a close connection between the New Testament era with the early church fathers like John the elder, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and others. We have to date these texts, no doubt, and some of them may indeed be late, and some were forgeries. But they still offer some kind of early testimony to the historicity of a man called Jesus. I just don’t see why we must discount the various independent writers of the New Testament itself on the historicity of Jesus. Why, for instance, should we not believe anything at all in the New Testament unless there is independent confirmation from outside sources?
I could be wrong. But here is why I think I’m right. Passionate cult-like religious groups are almost always started by a cultic charismatic figure especially a doomsday prophet, not an author, and not a committee. It’s almost always a single charismatic leader that gathers passionate religious people together. So who is the most likely candidate for starting the Jesus cult? Jesus himself is, although Paul certainly was the man most responsible for spreading what he believed about his story. And even though Paul never met Jesus and only had a vision of him on the Damascus Road (Acts 26:19), his testimony is that there were already believers whom he was persecuting in Palestine in the first century. So by Paul's own testimony he was not that charismatic person.
Comments
your argument goes full circle!
I got to the end and it was the beginning. how tricky and delightful.
Paul had a real encounter not a vision.
To say "Paul never met Jesus and only had a vision of him on the Damascus Road (Acts 26:19)" is simply not true. A vision does not make one go blind. John the revelator had a vision of Christ but did not go blind. Also Paul claimed to be an apostle and the term apostle arises from Roman practice. It is a compound word made up of the preposition "apo" which most narrowly means "from" plus the very "stello" which means "to send". In every case, of course, an "apostle" in the Roman world would be a qualified appointee, someone with specific authority and specific insight on the matter at hand. Thus Paul encountered the bodily risen Christ inside time and space and was "sent from" Christ to do a specific job. Paul met both qualifications for being an apostle of Jesus Christ.
Qualification one, is that the apostle be someone appointed by Christ Himself, carrying the authority designated by Christ and who was thoroughly familiar with the issues surrounding the Christ, his mission and work.
Qualification two, An Apostle had to be an eyewitness to the resurrection of the Christ.
No doubt Saul meet the bodily risen Christ and went through such a dramatic change of heart there is little doubt that he encountered the creator of the Universe. That is, God in the flesh as Jesus the Christ. The argument against a historical Christ is very weak at best no matter whether you are a believe or not.
I are a believe and not
There is not one historical verification of any significant character or event in the New Testament. Not one.
The sparse sidelong half-references that make up the body of "historical evidence" for the existence of JC are nearly all suspect or so vague as to not qualify for suspicion.
The 'textual evidence' is synthesized from thousands of invidually discordant sources by only people with ulterior motives, severe conflicts of interest, or precise intent to manipulate.
There IS NO argument for a historical Christ, no matter if are's beliefings you...
Ummmm...
When you say "Paul never met Jesus and only had a vision of him on the Damascus Road (Acts 26:19), his testimony is that there were already believers whom he was persecuting in Palestine in the first century. So by Paul's own testimony he was not that charismatic person."
Why do you suppose it's more likely "Paul" had a revelation about a real person rather than a revelation about someone who was formerly known as a pagan type dying/ressurecting godman? Since it's basically a hallucination on the road to Damascus why does the hallucination have to be about someone historical? In fact, if it were about a real person that people knew about then it wouldn't be a vision or a hallucination...just a history lesson. But to have this big fantastic vision that apparently was "news"...doesn't seem to jive with me that it would have to do with a historical person. More likely a vision would be all fantasy and imagined and far more likely that the reason it was a revelation was because he suddenly realized the dying godman was REAL!
I feel like you add a lot of conjecture and consider it evidence.
Cheers,
GR
The evidence?
In Galations and in Acts we're told Paul personally met with Peter and/or with the other apostles. This is called textual evidence, and it strongly indicates that someone called together the apostles and that they would correct Paul if ge didn't think of the cult leader as a real human person.
I think your views are conjecture. The textual evidence is on my side, which is all the evidence we can go on to make a decision.
Galations (sic) and Acts
An expert is supposed to interact with the evidence rather than simply go along with what the sources say. Galatians talks of Paul's meeting Cephas and then suddenly in 2:7-8 the text refers to Peter, and subsequently it talks once again about Cephas as one of the pillars and his actions in Antioch. 1 Corinthians also talks about Cephas, but not Peter. Gal 2:9 talks about the pillars going to the circumcised, yet 2:7-8 specifies only Peter going to the circumcised. The reference to Peter seems to be an addition to the text and is therefore not to be trusted on face value.
Acts is a much later work which has no problems talking about Peter. But using Acts in collaboration with Galatians is a little like using Mel Gibson's Passion in relation to the gospels.
What you are presenting is not called "textual evidence".
Please read exactly what Paul says in Gal 1:11-12: "For I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from man nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation a Jesus Christ." He didn't get it from Cephas or from James, the only two he met before going to Jerusalem.
He doesn't tell us what those people believed, though we can infer that they were messianists, for he says that he had previously attempted to destroy them and that now they were saying "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith that he once tried to destroy." (1:23)
So, Paul didn't get his gospel from other people, though he now apparently believed in the same thing that those he persecuted did.
The purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians is that the Galatians had come in contact with Jews who insisted that they be circumcised, which to Paul was unacceptable, so he attempts to convince them that torah observance has been rendered useless by the death and resurrection of Jesus. This latter idea is part of Paul's gospel, ie faith in Jesus and the salvific act of his death and resurrection, which sets him apart from those of the circumcision, of whom the people in Jerusalem belonged. (The messiah that Paul presents is clearly un-Jewish in conception, related more to the gentile idea of a savior, for the Jewish messiah was a liberator of the Jewish people and was so at least until 135 CE.)
It might be useful to present textual evidence for what those people in Jerusalem believed rather than assume it.
It's the convergence of evidence
Galatians cannot support the whole weight of the textual evidence. No document can do this. It's always the convergence of evidence that leads us to a conclusion about the past. When you do this you are not treating historical textual evidence fairly. In no other area could historians do what you want to do by isolating texts and asking each individual text to support the whole weight of a conclusion. Isolated texts cannot do this. As I said, if Paul had a different view of Jesus than the early church apostles then any one of them would've made that clear to him. And who called these apostles together in the first place? Cults are started by charismatic leaders, especially doomsday prophets.
Do you think Paul wrote these letters? Where is any independent corroboration of this claim? If there is none then why do you believe he did? And if you cannot support that claim then what becomes of the existence of Paul, or Peter, or even Papias?
I think I've made my argument on this clear. Thanks for commenting.
When will you start this convergence?
I choose to start at what looks like the beginning, ie when Paul had the revelation of his new gospel which he so happens to report in Galatians 1:11f. It is fairly simple: you start at the beginning and then go towards the end.
Now if you want me to call the writer of Galatians "Fritz" or "Wayne", I'll do so to make you happy, but it won't change the beginning that it signals.
I also choose to start with one text because it is short and less likely to have many of examples of "orthodox corruption of scriptures". You could then build on it with other less questionable Pauline (or Fritzlich) works, such as Romans or the letters to the Corinthians.
But with a start like the revelation, it explains how the religion got kick-started and needs no previous starter. Remember, Paul's communities needed nothing other than Paul to become believers, so a Pauline start is far more economical. If Paul didn't need more, why do you?
Once people start ruminating on the little tangible christ tradition that Paul gave his communities, with a strong will to know more the tradition will only expand to meet demand. Nothing stops such development. Just look at the absurd decisions they were making at the time of Arius: there was no way they could ever know about the substance of their god or their savior, yet there was strife and people excommunicated. Tradition expands. Did you know that Pilate had a wife named Procla? or that Pilate became a saint in the Coptic church? The Didache warns communities about itinerant preachers who went from one christian community to another making a living off them out of telling stories. Like bees sucking honey and fertilizing flowers. The community's traditions were enriched by the stories they heard from these busy bees.
Paul Had a Revelation?
You and I both know that Paul did not have any veridical revelation from God. So, where did he get his information? The textual evidence leads us to think he was persecuting followers of Jesus. It would follow quite naturally that when persecuting them he got much of his gospel from them. The details were filled in through this so-called revelation (or vision). As I said, mythic elements were indeed added to the Jesus story, and some of them were added because of visions. One thing seems fairly clear to me. Of all the beliefs Paul would have about the founder of the Jesus cult the one thing he would agree with the disciples was that there was a real person behind the doomsday prophecies that were such an embarrassment to the early church they had to rewrite these claims as time went on and the eschaton didn't happen.
You have a lot of explaining to do, not me. Become a historian of ancient Rome, okay? Then I think you'll see what I mean. If the only people you can confirm ever existed are those people who had their faces on coins or who actually wrote letters then there would be little history to write about (I exaggerate).
Karl Popper talked about verifying the claim that Caesar was killed by Brutus. He said we would have to verify the source that spoke of the event, then verify that source and then verify the source used to verify that source, and so on and so forth, until we would have little to verify that Caesar was killed by Brutus, since it becomes less and less probable that each additional source can verify all that went before it (called diminishing probabilities). One can rationally deny that Caesar was killed by Brutus. Maybe he didn’t, no one can be sure. In fact, one can rationally deny almost any claim made in the past, sometimes quite easily, especially the farther back in time we go and the less evidence there is for it, simply because the past does not give up its truths easily on a platter.
For me it’s just a matter of intellectual integrity, especially in this particular case with regard to Jesus. For if we want to be fair with Christianity in our criticisms and not appear to them as people who will deny anything to escape the claims of the gospel, then we should be fair with them. That’s my goal. I want to be fair with them and give them the benefit of the doubt. And there is doubt, no doubt. But even if we give them the benefit of doubt on this non-essential issue we still have a massive amount of evidence and arguments against their faith. I’ll let them have their cake, but they won’t be able to eat it. The bottom line is that one cannot be that skeptical about the evidence of the past or else one could also use that same skepticism to deny the Holocaust happened, which a few do. I stand with the overwhelming peer-reviewed scholars who think Jesus was a real person and that he was a doomsday prophet. Since that’s the case the burden is on you to show otherwise, and you have not done this.
Cheers.
Christ crucified v. torah observance
If you don't want to believe that Paul thought he had a revelation, then you are making Paul a hostile witness, because you don't believe what he says and you think you know better what's on his mind. I won't presume to think that. We know that he was in conflict with the Jerusalem group who were more interested in being good Jews and observing the torah rather than having faith in christ crucified. Which sounds more like the roots of christianity to you?
It seems to me, John, that you are willing to talk about anything but textual evidence, because you seem very reluctant to use any.
And I don't talk about myths regarding the christian religion, merely developing traditions. Traditions are those nice quagmires that *you* feel somehow you can enter into and come out with something tangible. Claiming this is a myth or that, but you can grasp the truth in the tradition sounds completely arbitrary to me. It verges on the same arbitrariness that JP Holding registers with his approach to the Testimonium Flavianum -- he'll pick this bit out and that, but keep whatever suits his fancy. You apparently do the same thing with christian tradition.
Another of your tangents regards denial. You have missed the point. I put myself down here as "uncommitted" on the issue. There is no denial at all in such a position. It says, bring on the evidence that I can't find. You have convinced yourself that there is textual evidence and I have asked you several times to actually produce some so we can look at what your thoughts are based on, but you aren't forthcoming. You just fall into arguing a binary taxonomy and ignoring the position I put forward. You have a responsibility to produce your evidence for the claim you are making and you haven't done so. I've even been kind enough to supply an alternative scenario that explains the whole evidence more economically. I haven't denied anything. I don't believe the scenario, but it is functional.
I have no doubt that Paul thought Jesus was a real person somehow. Otherwise christ crucified would be meaningless to him. However what he believed doesn't necessarily reflect reality, does it? He didn't know a real Jesus, so he didn't need one to believe he was real, and this was true for his communities who only received Jesus from him.
Your last paragraph is rather perplexing:
> For me it’s just a matter of intellectual integrity,
> especially in this particular case with regard to
> Jesus.
Is the case I present against you not a case for me of intellectual integrity? Your comment seems to be an implied slight, John.
> For if we want to be fair with Christianity in our
> criticisms and not appear to them as people who
> will deny anything to escape the claims of the
> gospel, then we should be fair with them. That’s
> my goal.
Here again you are *fixated* with denial and show no interest in evidence. What has being fair to christians got to do with understanding the birth of christianity?
> But even if we give them the benefit of doubt on
> this non-essential issue we still have a massive
> amount of evidence and arguments against their
> faith.
Again, talking about evidence without ever showing any. I would rather you got down to it argued a case for the existence of Jesus, rather than this sort of comment.
> The bottom line is that one cannot be that
> skeptical about the evidence of the past or else
> one could also use that same skepticism to
> deny the Holocaust happened, which a few do.
Skepticism is healthy, John. It allows you not to be bamboozled as you seem to be at the moment. You give the impression of not having anything up your sleeve to justify your position regarding the existence of Jesus, so you seek to talk about anything but that. You even commit the faux pas of dragging the holocaust into the discussion -- usually a very bad sign regarding the users content.
> I stand with the overwhelming peer-reviewed
> scholars who think Jesus was a real person
> and that he was a doomsday prophet.
You've already made that abundantly clear, but you haven't supplied any reason why. You've just talked about textual evidence without proffering any. Given lots of opportunities you haven't taken advantage of them to say anything tangible for the position you adhere to.
> Since that’s the case the burden is on you
> to show otherwise, and you have not done this.
And once again, the cop-out. While putting forward a substantive position you say: "I'm on the right side, so you have to show evidence first and I don't." Any substantive position requires the evidence put forward. As you apparently have no evidence you are simply try to shift the burden of proof. It doesn't matter how old an unsubstantiated claim is, if it is unsubstantiated then it has no value. So, will you make the effort and do what your colleagues refuse to do, ie substantiate your claims or will you refuse and pretend that the burden isn't on the claimant?
Paul
I don't believe Paul had a veridical revelation because I do not believe in God, just like I don't believe followers of Benny Hinn are miraculously healed. What I think is possible is a relevant factor in assessing any claim, whether in today's world or in the past. So your objection is spurious.
You said: "I have no doubt that Paul thought Jesus was a real person somehow. Otherwise christ crucified would be meaningless to him."
Case closed. And since the picture of Jesus as a doomsday prophet is the best explanation for who Jesus was there is nothing more to say.
Paul's belief is a non-miraculous one about the past and as such I have no prior control beliefs to deny it. You must deny the textual evidence to assert otherwise. Go ahead if you want to, but you'll be doing nothing more than special pleading now that you've admitted what you did. Just deny what you don't like and affirm what you do. But evidence? Who cares about that?
Again I don't think with the thinking skills you just displayed there is anything further I can say to you.
Subterfuge
I didn't enter into the nature of Paul's revelation. You seem perennially involved in such tangents. (If you must have some input as to what it was, think "Eureka moment" or "psychotic break" or "good trip" or "productive dream" or whatever pleases you -- that we can never test.) I didn't say anything other than that Paul thought he had a revelation, which is a form of him saying that he didn't get it from other people, which he specifically states and which you seem forced to contradict.
For some reason, because Paul believed that Jesus existed, you claim some kind of victory. Tertullian believed that Ebion existed and wrote against him, though we know Tertullian was wrong. Believing existence has nothing to do with existence. Why make such a banal error? You may as well argue that because Zarathustra believed that Ahura Mazda existed, that's good enough proof for you. And you've just convinced yourself that he did, right?
Paul's relationship with Jesus is explained by his revelation in Galatians 1:11-12. He says that that's where he got his information, ie he had no real life connection with Jesus. He wasn't taught his gospel and he didn't get it from other people. Paul's position is plain. You just don't like it.
I'm sorry, John, but you don't seem prepared for the task you have taken on, apparently not knowing the first step of arguing for the case you subscribe to. Burden shifting in perpetuity is not a constructive response. Confusing the topic (the existence of Jesus) with what you want to talk about (how christianity started) is also not healthy.
Yours still seems to be a position of faith.
How did Jesus found this movement?
”The first Christian writer was Paul. According to Paul, what did Jesus do to start this movement? As an aside, why did Paul not persecute the movement while Jesus was leading it? Did he send out disciples? Did he preach? Did he demonstrate against the Temple? Did he rewrite the Jewish law so that it did not apply? DId he declare himself to be king? Or did Jesus found the cultic meal,where the founder exists in a symbolic fashion as bread and wine? What would a mythical founder of a cult do other than found a ceremony highly charged with symbolism, where the believers can be in the prescence of the founder in a mystical way?”