tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post7463363912828642862..comments2024-01-21T02:41:00.325-05:00Comments on NT Pod: NT Pod 47: Did Jesus Exist?Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-87547803961907412392014-12-17T05:06:07.445-05:002014-12-17T05:06:07.445-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-83630924661793908802013-10-12T01:15:18.732-04:002013-10-12T01:15:18.732-04:00On question always disturbs me. I feel most of the...On question always disturbs me. I feel most of the time Paul is trying to control Peter and when we say brother of "Jesus" they are not brother of Jesus literary but the "ekklesi" or the church which was taking shape. The people who were cotrolling the church(heirarchy) just piled up all information for the protection of their jobs or craze in the field.M.Alamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01202706326049890843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-26379115913285540582013-10-12T00:59:56.821-04:002013-10-12T00:59:56.821-04:00It is really amazing that these professors those w...It is really amazing that these professors those who are holding great jobs in the universities and bible college do they hear all that and if they do not give no answer then what we should about them? Are they making us stupid or we are becoming fools ourselves.M.Alamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01202706326049890843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-52579076361201534292011-03-13T15:39:46.369-04:002011-03-13T15:39:46.369-04:00Thanks, Marcello. All good questions. Can't g...Thanks, Marcello. All good questions. Can't give them the time and space they deserve right now, I'm afraid, but perhaps in due course.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-10631355935844103632011-03-13T13:06:47.589-04:002011-03-13T13:06:47.589-04:00I know I am late to the party, but I want to chim...I know I am late to the party, but I want to chime in, anyway.<br /><br />One of the things I respect about Dr. Goodacre is his ability to disagree with differing hypotheses without losing respect for the tenuous, fragile nature of the documentary sources. Which is to say, the paucity of primary sources obliges one to approach opposing arguments with rational humility.<br /><br />Thus, I enjoyed this episode for its clear, honest presentation of a position Dr. Goodacre does not embrace, and his subsequent concise counter-argumentation.<br /><br />Having said that, I came out with a few questions that I had hoped he would have addressed.<br /><br />1) He mentions Paul's acquaintance with people who had personally known Jesus while alive. <br /><br />Isn't that reading the Gospels back into Paul? <br /><br />We assume Paul's Cephas is the Gospel's Peter because we retroject him there, not because Paul wrote "and then I got to hang out with Peter, who used to hang out with Jesus before the crucifixion..."!<br /><br />We assume Paul's "Brothers of the Lord" are the Gospel's sons of Joseph and Mary because we retroject them there and not because Paul wrote "Jimbo shared a mother but not a father with Jesus and is thus called 'brother of the Lord', not because this is his ecclesiastical title like I am an Apostle and Mary is a Mourner, etc."!<br /><br />How confident can we be these are actual eyewitnesses? Or could they have been notorious Christian leaders from the past incorporated into the Gospels much the same way other historical figures (e.g. Pilate, Herod, John, Caiaphas) could have been, and we're just, 2,000 years later, conflating the two sources because the Gospel narratives are so culturally ingrained already?<br /><br />2) He mentions Paul's inclusion of Jesus traditions. <br /><br />How can we ascertain the historicity of oral traditions handed down to Paul? We can be confident Paul was told -- and believed -- that Jesus died and resurrected, that Jesus was betrayed, that Jesus opposed divorces, but considering the admitted lack of personal eyewitness testimony, can we be confident these traditions trace back to historical events? Or only to previous tellings and re-tellings of believed events?<br /><br />Again, it goes back to Paul's acquaintance with eyewitnesses, but how sure is our footing there, really? (see #1)<br /><br />3) He mentions the little time elapsed between Jesus' life and ministry with Paul's own life and ministry (as opposed to the much wider chronological gap with the Gospels and subsequent epistolary traditions). <br /><br />Paul doesn't date Jesus to a "recent" past, and we only believe he did because we accept Mark's inclusion of Pilate in his pascal pageantry. How can we be sure to date Jesus' demise to the early fourth decade without complimentary attestation? How can we know that Jesus traditions hadn't been developing for several decades before Paul came into the picture?<br /><br />Again, it goes back to Paul's acquaintance with eyewitnesses (see #1), and also our acceptance that Mark included historical figures from the past (i.e. Pilate, Peter, James, the Twelve, John the Baptizing, etc.) based on second-hand accounts, and our rejecting of the possibility that from the other side of the Jewish War, he could have wanted to anchor his pageantry in a distant-but-not-so-distant past. How justified are we to be confident in that?<br /><br />4) An unrelated question: whatever happened to those excellent extended episodes?<br /><br />I am aware the NTPod has a long list of subjects to tackle before I can presume to impose, but I would be excited to hear Dr. Goodacre tackle these questions.<br /><br />(Disclaimer: I am not a mythicist, and I am definitely not a NT scholar, but as a historian I am still unimpressed with the *positive* evidence for the Historical Jesus. I do, however, enjoy the search and the scholarly debate.)Marcello Junhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00031876989559877940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-22445131550400575382011-02-12T20:58:41.632-05:002011-02-12T20:58:41.632-05:00Hey Neil,
It looks like on that page this would b...Hey Neil,<br /><br />It looks like on that page this would be the first of the 5 main articles.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/preamble.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/preamble.htm</a><br /><br />Cheers! RichGriese.NETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-25347362195580581032011-02-12T20:46:31.297-05:002011-02-12T20:46:31.297-05:00Dear Neil,
When you say the mythicist position, w...Dear Neil,<br /><br />When you say the mythicist position, which group are you talking about? The folks that think the jesus myths are true or the ones that don't believe the jesus myths? I can never get the groups straight. I mean, if you believe the jesus myths are you a mythicist or not a mythicist?<br /><br />If you looking for an example of a view of someone that does not think the jesus myths are true you might check out this;<br /><br />http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/mainarticles-1.html<br /><br />Cheers! RichGriese.NETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-30264219521215307092011-02-12T20:00:20.506-05:002011-02-12T20:00:20.506-05:00Steven,
I'm not familiar with the details of ...Steven,<br /><br />I'm not familiar with the details of the mythicist position. I've read Price's contribution to the Beilby/Eddy collection and reviewed some stuff on the internet. I've ordered Doherty's 800 page tome.<br /><br />As far as Hebrews goes, if the mythers claim that the author did not believe that Jesus lived on earth then there are a lot of passages that need to be explained. In addition to the ones I mentioned there are others such as Hebrews 1:6, 2:14-18, 7:11-14 and 13:11-14.<br /><br />It seems to me that the author of Hebrews believes things are happening simultaneously in the physical and the spiritual world. Even if he is something of a Platonist who believes the spiritual world is more "real" he doesn't deny that Jesus lived on earth.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-27414351502488959112011-02-12T14:45:46.844-05:002011-02-12T14:45:46.844-05:00'In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up pr...'In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear.'<br /><br />So Jesus's prayers, cries and tears to be saved from death were heard , were they?<br /><br />I thought the guy got killed.<br /><br />Hebrews is about as clear as you can get.<br /><br />'But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation.'<br /><br />Not a part of this creation is pretty clearly not referring to a part of this creation.<br /><br />But the author of Hebrews rubs in the fact that Christ was killed in Heaven.<br /><br />'It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.'<br /><br />Christ appeared once, and entered the Holy Place in Heaven, there to be sacrificed.<br /><br /> Christ did not suffer once in an earthly Jerusalem, and once in the heavenly Jerusalem that is above us (see Galatians 4 for Paul's adamant claims that there is a Jerusalem above us)<br /><br />Christ suffered once. In Heaven, in a place that was not part of this creation.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-42034158609567834472011-02-12T12:42:59.906-05:002011-02-12T12:42:59.906-05:00Thanks for your comments, Neil.
I had forgotten a...Thanks for your comments, Neil.<br /><br />I had forgotten about that book by Dunn -- thanks for the reminder.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-6007881185637365772011-02-12T10:12:35.382-05:002011-02-12T10:12:35.382-05:00Incidentally, James Dunn did something of a respon...Incidentally, James Dunn did something of a response to the BBC program in his book The Evidence for Jesus.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-55602291360817781102011-02-12T09:01:52.102-05:002011-02-12T09:01:52.102-05:00_____
Traditionalists can't conceive that &qu..._____<br /><br />Traditionalists can't conceive that "brother of the Lord" could mean anything but a biological brother. <br />_____<br /><br />Of course "traditionalists" can conceive of all sorts of things. The question is what is the most reasonable interpretation.<br /><br />Someone mentioned Hebrews. I think there are a couple of passages that indicate the writer considered Jesus a real person: Hebrews 4:15 and 5:7-9.<br /><br />_______<br /><br />For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. <br /><br />****<br /><br />In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him<br /><br />_____<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-68114152701994371952011-01-23T11:30:51.940-05:002011-01-23T11:30:51.940-05:00Seems interesting to me how Church dogma has condi...Seems interesting to me how Church dogma has conditioned people to see things in a particular way. <br /><br />Traditionalists can't conceive that "brother of the Lord" could mean anything but a biological bother. <br /><br />Yet "Son of God" makes perfect sense to them in some other way other than we all understand it.<br /><br />This shows how prior Church dogma has conditioned people.<br /><br />Cheers! RichGriese.NETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-29341680364844735462011-01-15T20:02:01.146-05:002011-01-15T20:02:01.146-05:00Dr. Goodacre,
Doesn't our interpretation of w...Dr. Goodacre,<br /><br />Doesn't our interpretation of what Paul meant by "received" in Corinthians depend in part on when we think it was written? If Galatians was the earlier letter, wouldn't we be more likely to conclude that Paul was using "received" to mean "received from God" in Corinthians?Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-8267879709534030482011-01-15T15:29:01.154-05:002011-01-15T15:29:01.154-05:00Vinny,
It is because it appears to describe the t...Vinny,<br /><br />It is because it appears to describe the traditioning process, "I received . . . I passed on to you", originating with Jesus on the night that he was handed over; the same process is set out at the beginning of 1 Cor. 15.<br /><br />For the contrast between 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1, I have further comments at: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-galatians-post-date-1-corinthians_19.htmlMark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-55945371027328490142011-01-15T13:52:09.708-05:002011-01-15T13:52:09.708-05:00Mike,
One of the biggest problems in understandin...Mike,<br /><br />One of the biggest problems in understanding Paul is that he tells us so little about what it was about the earliest Christians' beliefs that caused him to oppose them. Paul could certainly have known that they celebrated some sort of ritual meal, but did they see Jesus as the Passover Lamb or was that part of Paul's revelation? I don't know how one could begin to guess how much transformation Paul might have been responsible for.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-39943325137087500522011-01-15T13:18:58.866-05:002011-01-15T13:18:58.866-05:00Dr. Goodacre,
What is it about "I received ....Dr. Goodacre,<br /><br />What is it about "I received . . . I passed on to you" that makes it more likely that Paul intended to communicate that he received it from men rather than received it from God? Wouldn't that language apply equally well to either case? Given his insistence in Galatians 1 that he did not receive the gospel from men or meet with the other apostles for three years after his conversion, don't we have to give at least equal weight to the possibility that Paul thought of the teachings in Corinthians as part of his revelation from God? I was intrigued by your hypothesis that Paul's attitude changed towards the traditions he received from men between Corinthians and Galatians, but it doesn't seem to be a hypothesis that can be substantiated.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-79595481264753615242011-01-15T12:47:01.849-05:002011-01-15T12:47:01.849-05:00Hi Kilo. It helps to notice this because "th...Hi Kilo. It helps to notice this because "the Lord Jesus" is Jesus "on the night that he was handed over", i.e. this comes to Paul through tradition. I disagree that it "reads like a revelatory experience"; I think it reads like a traditioning process, with "I received . . . I passed on to you" etc.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-48038349068712347482011-01-15T12:12:31.929-05:002011-01-15T12:12:31.929-05:00Kilo Papa, what do you think the chances are that ...Kilo Papa, what do you think the chances are that Paul invented the Last Supper? Or is it possible that he had a revelation that transformed the meaning of it? I note in John, while Jesus is the Bread of Life, there is no Lords Supper, Jesus still eats a dinner with his betrayer, but there isn't a ceremonial significance. What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-15533998748897990022011-01-15T04:21:16.465-05:002011-01-15T04:21:16.465-05:00"He qualifies "the Lord" in the sec..."He qualifies "the Lord" in the second half of the sentence as "the Lord Jesus."<br /><br />I don't see how this helps explain Pauls use of "I received from the Lord". Whether he means the Lord God or Lord Jesus the language still reads like a revelatory experience. Some 1 Corinthians commentaries state that Paul might have received this information, or some basic form of it, during his Damascus Road experience.<br /><br />It just seems like a very odd way to relate something that should have obviously been learned through people to whom Paul was in personal contact with.<br /><br />Thanks again for taking the time to respond.<br />Kenkilo papahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112057471953902453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-9853360558706261802011-01-14T13:14:19.062-05:002011-01-14T13:14:19.062-05:00Steve, if you decide to pursue Judas Myth rather t...Steve, if you decide to pursue Judas Myth rather than Christ Myth, you will be much more company. However, the title of the pod is "Did Jesus Exist?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-6360071566285208402011-01-14T11:31:43.048-05:002011-01-14T11:31:43.048-05:00MIKE
What you are asking for is like me asking for...MIKE<br />What you are asking for is like me asking for proof of the alligator that Davy Crockett used to ride up the Niagara Falls before you believe Davy Crockett existed.<br /><br />CARR<br />Just produce the evidence that Judas existed, just like Mormons should produce the evidence that the Angel Moroni existed.<br /><br />If Mike wants to spend his time abusing people who simply ask for no more than the name of somebody who personally claimed to have seen or heard of this Judas....<br /><br />Apparently this is too much to ask,although it is no more than asking for the name of somebody who saw this second gunman who shot JFKSteven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-5518909140290898492011-01-14T09:27:27.334-05:002011-01-14T09:27:27.334-05:00I'm not sure what Paul intended. He usually u...I'm not sure what Paul intended. He usually used the word "brother" to designate a spiritual relationship and I can't find anything else in Paul to indicate that he thought that people he knew had heard anything Jesus said or witnessed anything Jesus did during his earthly ministry. I wouldn't say that I "caution" against the biological meaning of brother. I just don't think that I would interpret it that way if I wasn't familiar with later writings.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-35283218320310048122011-01-14T07:02:18.481-05:002011-01-14T07:02:18.481-05:00Thanks for the useful comments and questions, CJ.Thanks for the useful comments and questions, CJ.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-49637987669929540302011-01-14T03:27:57.251-05:002011-01-14T03:27:57.251-05:00Interesting comments!
@ Vinny
Your comment that y...Interesting comments!<br /><br />@ Vinny<br />Your comment that you would caution against reading the reference to James in 1 Cor 9.5 as an indication of biological relationship makes me wonder what you would propose as an alternative reading of that verse. We must note that in that passage Paul mentions "the other apostles and brothers of the Lord and Cephas (Peter)". Here, Paul seems to differentiate between these three, and in this case one could read this passage one of two ways: either the "brothers of the Lord" are the siblings of Jesus or they refer to those who are a part of the mission but do not hold the title of apostle. I take it that you would opt for the latter. <br /><br />If I haven't missed it while reading through the various posts, I am surprised that two important passages from Galatians haven't been brought up: Gal 1.19 & 4.4. <br /><br />In Gal 1.19 Paul recounts that he spent two weeks in Jerusalem with "James the Lord's brother". I find it worth noting that Paul says here "the Lord's brother" instead of "James, a brother of the Lord". Paul's description of James here, I would think, lends more support to the understanding that he is the biological relative of Jesus. <br /><br />As for Gal. 4.4, Paul describes Jesus as being "born of a woman". This is used elsewhere as Jewish circumlocution for calling someone a human being (cf. Job 14.1; 15.14; 25.4; Matt. 11.11). <br /><br />Wondering what everyone's thoughts are regarding these two additional verses. <br /><br />Cheers.CJ Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10772534371044603411noreply@blogger.com