Did Jesus Exist

[RJM]

Would they not be as authentic as the gospels? Just mislabeled author names?

They are the 7 letters of Paul actually written by Paul? Or at least by the person named as Paul -- not written by others?

Paul was the earliest writer about Jesus -- so it's important to know what he actually wrote and what he did not?

 

[wil]

Yes important ... But the ones they expect not are believed to be written by others...as if...and in his way... Sort of a step above MML&J eh?

 

[RJM]

Yes important ... But the ones they expect not are believed to be written by others...as if...and in his way... Sort of a step above MML&J eh?

Did Shakespeare actually write the plays? But the people who study them accept they were all written by the same person.

 

[RJM]

The plays reveal a lot of side-information about life in Shakespeare's time, etc. Not as if some were written 200 yrs after, for example?

 

[wil]

The plays reveal a lot of side-information about life in Shakespeare's time, etc. Not as if some were written 200 yrs after, for example?

I don't know...

Like the bible... I have seen/read both sides enough to know a. There is some doubt, b. Scholars argue/debate. C. There.is no definitive answer....

Ya gotta believe!

 

[RJM]

I don't know...

Like the bible... I have seen/read both sides enough to know a. There is some doubt, b. Scholars argue/debate. C. There.is no definitive answer....

Ya gotta believe!

My questions are really just to try to sort out which are the authentic writings of Paul himself, as accepted by the majority of scholars including atheists like Bart Ehrman, who have no axe to grind, nothing to prove?

 

[wil]

My questions are really just to try to sort out which are the authentic writings of Paul himself, as accepted by the majority of scholars including atheists like Bart Ehrman, who have no axe to grind, nothing to prove?

I get that part, thought it was asked and answered. I've read a couple of Barts books his resume, upbringing, religious experience and education is interesting.

The bible to me is 66 books the church put together as valuable Christian documents... 2/3 of it is the Jewish canon (albeit rearranged to emphasize the "good news" to follow)

I suspect today not all would make the cut and Thomas may be included (not our Thomas, he would be right out...lol). Would other apocryphal books be included? Idk. But I will take what we have (including notPaul's letters) as my main source of religious insight and inspiration (taking thoughts from other religions and later scholars in mind) and all with a grain of salt.

 

[RJM]

The bible to me is 66 books the church put together as valuable Christian documents... 2/3 of it is the Jewish canon (albeit rearranged to emphasize the "good news" to follow)

I suspect today not all would make the cut and Thomas may be included (not our Thomas, he would be right out...lol). Would other apocryphal books be included?

The Catholic Bible contains also seven apocryphal books:

Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom -- and also additions to Esther and Daniel.

But I will take what we have (including notPaul's letters) as my main source of religious insight and inspiration (taking thoughts from other religions and later scholars in mind) and all with a grain of salt.

What a person wants to take from them is up to that person but if I'm taking or not taking from Shakespeare (or whoever he really was) I want to know it's the real deal -- according to the major consensus of unbiased experts -- not stuff written perhaps centuries later?

It's the reason for asking. Hebrews was not mentioned previously, so just trying to get it right?

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Ah, but let us not forget the topic of the thread.

If J didn't exist, then all those that wrote about and asserted his teaching were presumably being economical with.... well everything really.

This would also imply that rather than being built on rock, the whole thing is based on quicksand.

Not really a problem, because the underlying ethos of Christianity is, it has to be said, a good thing.

The trouble is, be it Peteristianity or Paulistian, all that eternal afterlife stuff would be a load of bunkum.

 

[RJM]

Ok. But fact is that Paul (in the writings which the main scholarship does accept as authentic) attests to spending 15 days with Peter (Cephas) and to knowing and conversing with James, the brother of Jesus. It is evidence that Jesus's brother and closest followers believed of Jesus at least something along the lines of what Paul wrote about him?

 

[RJM]

Paul wrote it. It wasn't someone else who added it centuries later. Major scholarship accepts it. Was Paul inventing stuff? That is a separate issue?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ok. But fact is that Paul (in the writings which the main scholarship does accept as authentic) attests to spending 15 days with Peter (Cephas) and to knowing and conversing with James, the brother of Jesus. It is evidence that Jesus's brother and closest followers believed of Jesus at least something along the lines of what Paul wrote about him?

That would be the logical conclusion. "along the lines of what Paul wrote about him".
I don't believe that Jesus was/is a Hellenistic Jew.

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.
...
The reasons for the decline of Hellenistic Judaism are obscure. It may be that it was marginalized by, absorbed into, or became Early Christianity (see the Gospel of the Hebrews). The Pauline epistles and the Acts of the Apostles report that, after his initial focus on the conversion of Hellenized Jews across Anatolia, Macedonia, Thrace and Northern Syria without criticizing their laws and traditions, Paul the Apostle eventually preferred to evangelize communities of Greek and Macedonian proselytes and Godfearers, or Greek circles sympathetic to Judaism: the Apostolic Decree allowing converts to forego circumcision made Christianity a more attractive option for interested pagans than Rabbinic Judaism, which required ritual circumcision for convert.
-wiki Hellenistic_Judaism-

 

[RJM]

That would be the logical conclusion. "along the lines of what Paul wrote about him".
I don't believe that Jesus was/is a Hellenistic Jew.

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.
...
The reasons for the decline of Hellenistic Judaism are obscure. It may be that it was marginalized by, absorbed into, or became Early Christianity (see the Gospel of the Hebrews). The Pauline epistles and the Acts of the Apostles report that, after his initial focus on the conversion of Hellenized Jews across Anatolia, Macedonia, Thrace and Northern Syria without criticizing their laws and traditions, Paul the Apostle eventually preferred to evangelize communities of Greek and Macedonian proselytes and Godfearers, or Greek circles sympathetic to Judaism: the Apostolic Decree allowing converts to forego circumcision made Christianity a more attractive option for interested pagans than Rabbinic Judaism, which required ritual circumcision for convert.
-wiki Hellenistic_Judaism-

These waters are out of my depth. But I do know one thing: the fact that Jesus came from 1st Century Palestinian Judaism doesn't mean he generally wished only to make a couple of small structural corrections around details of how 'the law' was practised.

His was at the very least a radical upshaking vision of transformation -- and I do not mean social but spiritual. So: To Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.

This type of discussion can run off the rails quite fast around here, lol

 

[wil]

I just look at what we see today as to how famous folk get elevated after their death...or even during their lives. As their followers try to get other folks to come along for the ride the stories are told that will be most worthy of that mission.

George Washington...valley forge, crossing.the delaware, never told a lie. Heroes and hyperbole often feed off.each other. Reading other mythology it does not seem exaggeration is a modern construct.

But again...to me...it makes me even more interested in what the writers wanted him to say. They were the shakespeares trying to tell the story and entertain an audience in hope their story got retold (and included in canon) rather than left on the cutting floor of history as fake news.

 

[RJM]

And that is why with Jesus it's important to deal with sources as close to him as possible. His brother James, the apostle Peter, the writings of Paul. Ok, it might all be invented, but that is not the opinion of serious scholars and historians.

What Paul wrote about within around 20 yrs after the crucifixion -- and it was Paul himself who wrote it -- was at least a reflection of whatever beliefs were 'going around' at a time when people who had known Jesus were still alive and were talking and telling their stories about Jesus?

The writings of Paul are the closest we get.

 

[wil]

and it was Paul himself who wrote it -- was at least a reflection of whatever beliefs were 'going around' at a time when people who had known Jesus were still alive and were talking and telling their stories about Jesus?

Again...this is discussion...and me comparing the past to today but...

Have you seen what folks write and say about their favorite political leaders (Trump, Boris, Biden, Clinton)... Especially the recent converts who had a road to Damascus experience during an election!

I mean...if they tossed everything they found that was negative against Jesus...and only kept the pamphlets of pundits from their own political party...
We are talking about the radicals from the liberal party and their rags.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Ok. But fact is that Paul (in the writings which the main scholarship does accept as authentic) attests to spending 15 days with Peter (Cephas) and to knowing and conversing with James, the brother of Jesus. It is evidence that Jesus's brother and closest followers believed of Jesus at least something along the lines of what Paul wrote about him?

A quick look up of James gives me the impression that James' relationship to J seems tenuous. Some suggest he was a step brother of a previous Joseph marriage.

However, it doesn't make any difference to the basic issue. If J is an invention of P or P, then any brother would also have as much relevance.

"I spoke to a brother of someone that didn't exist"

is hardly proof that either existed.

By the way: I'm not asserting the existence or none existence of J.

I'm merely pointing out how Christianity would have no basis whatsoever if he didn't exist.

 

[RJM]

I'm merely pointing out how Christianity would have no basis whatsoever if he didn't exist.

Exactly. And the consensus is that he did

 

[muhammad_isa]

Exactly. And the consensus is that he did

Absolutely. It is a fact that is beyond reasonable doubt.

However, Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew
Perhaps you might be interested in the following video..

Jesus, the Law, and a "New" Covenant - by Bart Erhman

 

[muhammad_isa]

Practically all historical scholars of Jesus would say that Jesus did not set out to start a new religion.
He was a Jewish reformer who kept Jewish laws, questioning the interpretation of the "scribes".