Rook: Here is the problem I find with your theory. I find it hard to believe that first century Jewish writers would craft a story of Jesus with any non-Jewish influence. It is uncharacteristic for Jewish writers to use pagan material as inspiration for their writing (just look at the Talmud). For example, Mark is a Jew with an excellent understanding of liturgy. The Hebrew Scriptures play the sole role in his historical interpretation.  

A perfect instance of Mark's historical interpretation of a real event was the crucifixion. Mark interprets the crucifixion based on Psalm 22. Working in reverse, Mark uses verses such as the cry of dereliction, and a verse about casting lots to interpret the execution of Jesus. This does not mean that the core event of the crucifixion wasn't real. Instead, Mark inputs his own historical interpretation of the event through his use of Hebrew Scriptures.  

Furthermore, the author of Matthew certainly isn't using outside sources other than Hebrew Scriptures. The entire book is structured in five parts to represent the Torah. Throughout the book, Jesus is painted as a new and greater Moses.  

I will definetly look into that book about Homer. Regardless, I don't see how that disproves the mere existence of Jesus. Certainly almost every aspect of his life can be disputed. I don't deny that many aspects of the gospels are not historical events. However, the writings and myths surrounding Jesus still center on a man who really existed in some capacity.

Take Paul for example. His conversion to Christianity has been dated from 31-36 CE (Harnack). Although never meeting Jesus, Paul literally would have been surrounded by follwers of Jesus. In an authentic letter of Paul, he specifically mentions the birth of Jesus from a woman (Galatians 4:4-5).

On another note, in "The God who wasn't there," the video tries to use Hebrews 8:4 to prove that Paul believed that Jesus was a mythical person. Other than that verse being out of context, the video ignores that fact that Paul did not write Hebrews. I'm sure you know the reasons why Paul is not considered the author. The main reason is Koine analysis compared to authentic letters of Paul.

Sorry about my mention of Matthew. Obviously Mark was his main source. I meant to say that he draws significant influence from the Torah.

"The God who wasn't there," only uses Hebrews 8:4 to prove that Paul didn't think that Jesus was a real person. The video ignores that Paul didn't write Hebrews, and was probably executed before Hebrews was written.

Harnack wasn't using Luke-Acts to date Paul's conversion. It doesn't really matter when Luke-Acts was written to date Paul, because it was written at least 20-30 years after Paul's death my an author who never met Paul. Harnack uses Galatians to date the conversion at 31-36 CE.

You are certainly right that Paul does not mention many of the details from the gospels. However, I think that 1 Cor 15 gives a strong account of the death/resurrection of Jesus. For example, Jesus was buried (verse 4). Paul goes on to describe a resurrected body later on in chapter 15. "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable....it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Paul is trying to show the importance of a real person resurrected into a spiritual body.

You assume Paul was executed.  I don't necessarily know if that is established, as we have no real data, even from Paul. But if that is the case, then I'm sure Brian Flemming has corrected the problem in his newer addition.

Fair enough.  I was just making sure you weren't going to try to use Acts.  I'm glad you didn't, and I conceed this point. 

Actually, you say 'many', I would say Paul mentions none of the accounts from the Gospels since the Gospels might have even used some of Paul to write their accounts, or atleast Pauline tradition.  So it may not be hard to find some similarities in Paul with the Gospels.  This is understandable, since tradition would have been known then to Mark.  This does not imply that Paul knew of the Gospel events, what it does mean is that (and which is more probable) the followers of Christ at the time of mark knew of Pauline Theology, but that at the time Mark wrote, it would have been heavily altered theology.

Note that Carrier holds your position in his debate with Licona on UCLA.  I'm not sure if you're aware, but he's not a mythicist.  This is an excerpt from a book I'm working on and revising (although this is not revised yet) it has a lot of information.  I'll also include more information at the end of the excerpt.  I apologize for length, I like being throrough.

There is a lot to cover, so I'm going to start out with what Carrier has to say on this chapter, and I'll add in my two cents after his points, which he makes clear where he has posted these that there are more he could cover.

1. Paul makes no distinction between his vision and appearances to the others, apart from when it happened (vv. 8, vs. 1-7). This makes it prima facie reasonable that all the appearances were understood by him to be visions and not literally physical in the sense portrayed by the Gospels of Luke and John.
2. Paul's distinction between "perishable" and "imperishable" bodies (vv. 42) is based on a distinction between earthly things and things of heaven (vv. 40, 47-9), and it was common belief in antiquity that the heavenly things were ethereal. Since Paul does not disclaim the common belief, he must be assuming his readers already accept it. This makes it prima facie reasonable that he means the "imperishable body" to be an ethereal one, not a body of flesh.
3. Paul literally makes this distinction, calling the one a "natural body" (psychikos) and the other a "spiritual body" (pneumatikos), and says that they both coexist in one person (vv. 44), in that first there is a natural body which is then infused with a spiritual one (vv. 46), thus the resurrected body is clearly in his mind something lacking the physical body we know, the body that is conceived in a womb and only later infused with a spirit. He says outright (here and in 2 Cor. 4:16-5:9) that the body we know, the body of flesh, is sown only to die, and only this other, second body, the body of the spirit, rises to new life.
4. The Christian lexicographer Photius understood psychikos to mean the "animal" part of man (Lexicon, s.v.), as opposed to the higher, spiritual part that was made in the image of God (and God is certainly not a body of flesh), and there is a lot of evidence that Paul meant this as well.[i]
5. Paul distinguishes Adam and Jesus in a certain way that supports this: Adam is regarded as being alive in the psychic sense, Jesus as giving life in the pneumatic sense (vv. 45), and Paul relates them as opposites (also vv. 22), so that as Adam was given physical form, beginning the age of sin, Jesus transcended it, ending sin. For Adam was made of dust (crude matter), but the resurrected Jesus was not (vv.47, cf. 48-9).
6. Paul says point blank that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (vv. 50), because flesh and blood is the mortal, perishable body, and we are resurrected as an imperishable body (ibid.). It is thus plain that he does not believe that the resurrection involved flesh and blood, i.e a physical body in our familiar sense, but a different, ethereal body, like the same sort of body angels have (and according to the Gospels, Jesus said we shall be like angels, cf. Mk. 12:25; Mt. 22:30; Lk. 20:34-36).

I'd like to go over each bullet point as these are Carrier's points, and since he isn't here to back these up, I'll add in my own evidence to weigh in on certain things I feel need to be explained more.

The first point is pretty clear if you know Paul, but if not you may be wondering, "Wait, what about his conversion? Didn't he see Christ?" No. According to Galatians1:1, "Not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;" and also Galatians 1:11-12, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

For Paul this is clear as day, that he did not receive his conversion from a physical being, but rather a revelation (aποκaλυψις), which in the Greek literally means "manifestation" or “revelation/apocalypse.”[ii]  This is the same word used in Romans 2:5, “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” and 1 Corinthians 1:7.

1 Corinthians 1:7 is important to have a side note, just to explain how some Christians will purposefully misinterpret texts to explain things. If you read the KJV text of this passage this is what you get: "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:" The problem is the Greek doesn't use the word "coming" or "to come" in any manner. This verse is used by Christians to generally prove a second coming of Christ[iii], but lets look at the Greek, " ωστε (therefore) υμας (you) μη υστερεισθαι (shall not fall short) εν μηδενι (in any) χαρισματι (grace) απεκδεχομενους (anticipating) την αποκαλυψιν (the revelation) του κυριου ημων (of our Lord) ιησου χριστου (Jesus Christ)."

You'll see the translation is much different when understood in the Greek and within the context of the passages. Note that I highlighted in red the same word used in 1 Corinthians 15, and that it again means the same thing - a revelation, a vision of Jesus. Paul uses this word even after interviewing with the Apostles in Jerusalem three years after his conversion in Galatians to explain his vision. You'd think that had Jesus really been resurrected in the bodily form as Acts suggests, that Peter would have compared stories with Paul when they met there in Jerusalem. Couldn't you just see the conversation unfolding in your mind?

Peter: "Yes, I've seen Christ risen as well! He was glorious! He let us tough his palms where the nails had been pierced through his very bone! And Thomas just started apologizing like you wouldn't believe. Then he was swept up in an array of clouds! Was that what you saw too?"

Paul: "Why yes! I saw that as well! Let me go preach about this miracle to the world!"

*some years later*

Paul scribbling notes down on papyri to the Galatians: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Don't you find it odd that he would describe his vision in this manner? Why would he use the word donating "revelation" and not something that would have fit much better? And what of his constant reference to Christ "in the spirit?" Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Had Christ been a physical being, and Paul had witnessed this, or even discussed this matter with Peter, why does he differentiate between the spiritual body (pneumatikos) and the natural body (psycikos)? It seems rather odd one would make a distinction between the two if they believed in a one-body resurrection, and not a new, spiritual body that they'd get upon death. This makes no sense at all, unless there's more to it.

In fact when he describes the vision among the 500, he states in the Greek, "φησὶν ἀκούων λόγια θεο ῦὅστις ὅρασιν θεοῦ εἶδεν ἐν ὕπνῳ ἀποκεκαλυμμένοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ" in which the two words highlighted differentiate better the difference between sight and visions. The first word comes from the Greek ὅρασις which indicates seeing (mentally, a vision) which is then supported by the word ὁράω which signifies the vision, qualifying the first. This is how the word is read - a vision, a sight through the mind.[iv]

Notice how these phrases and words and just the general overall language of Paul differs from that of the Talmud, and that of Christians less then a hundred years later. This is important, because remember what we're trying to establish - what exactly Paul believed of the resurrection. Not only through that of Christ but of every man, and how important Paul said it was - "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain..." Of course it's important! As stated earlier, the entire Christian faith rests upon this idea.

But clearly Paul does not hold to the one-body resurrection. If he had, we would see signs of this, but we don't. It's clear, in fact, that we see the opposite. As Carrier alluded to, it makes a clear reference to what Josephus states on this doctrine, believed by the Essene sect of the Jews:

“For this particular doctrine (the Two-Body doctrine – Ed) is strong among them: bodies are subject to corruption and their material is not permanent, but souls are immortal and persist forever. Descending from the thinnest ether they are merged with bodies just like prisons, having been drawn down by some natural spell. But whenever they are released from the bonds of the flesh, as if released from a long slavery, then they rejoice and are carried skyward.” (Wars 2:8:11; 154-5)

“The bodies of all men are indeed mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter, but the soul is forever immortal, and is a part of God that inhabits our bodies….Don’t you know that those who exit this life according to the law of nature, and pay that debt received from God, when he that gave it wants it back again…then the souls that remain pure and obedient obtain from God the holiest place in heaven, and from there, after the completion of the ages, they are instead sent again into undefiled bodies.” (Wars 3:8:5; 372, 374-75)

Indeed the very same idea is shown here in Paul. What is more interesting is how Josephus describes the nature of this ideology and from whence it stemmed. That will be discussed in the next section.

I also want to make it clear the meaning of Paul when he discusses the natural and spiritual bodies. Carrier, in his publication I posted above, makes the following graph:

Figure 4

Carrier states, "The above chart makes the meaning of these Greek words clear: psychikos and pneumatikos are adjectives, meaning something is made of, or is like, or shares the properties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psychê and pneuma respectively. When we look at the nouns, we find that their associations are clear: one is used typically to refer to a living body, hence a body of flesh and blood (a search of the letters of Paul shows this to be his usual use of the word); the other, always to a disembodied spirit. The word sôma, which they modify in 1 Cor. 15:44, means only a distinct thing with volume and location, it does not entail what that thing is made of or what its properties are or where it came from. Paul calls the resurrected a pneumatikos sôma to distinguish this pneuma from "the" Pneuma, or Holy Spirit, which is not a sôma because it is everywhere, whereas a resurrected soul is not everywhere, but has a distinct and localized existence as an individual. Paul clearly means to say that when we are resurrected, we become like the Holy Spirit, and cease to be what we are when we were alive (a living body made of dust), but unlike the Holy Spirit, our spirit is still organized as a new kind of body, more like Casper the Ghost.”[v]

Indeed, there is no denying the fact that these words are dissimilar, and in fact are not the same thing as some of the early church fathers had thought - and even made a case using this very passage and chapter. It is also obvious that Paul could not have been discussing the same thing that the Church fathers had thought he was.

So far we've discussed several important topics in this essay, that being the fact that we determined exactly the nature of the resurrection through various sources including modern-day church authorities and authorities in antiquity. We've discussed the importance of it, and why it is that way, as well as determined what the church fathers had to say on the matter. We've witnessed the internal contradictions of the resurrection in the Gospels and also the complications of the historical nature of the resurrection, and we've now discussed Paul at length concerning his views on the resurrection, how he differed from the Gospels, Pharisees and the later Church fathers, and also how there was similarity to Paul's thought to that of Josephus and Philo, and other Jews and Gentile Jews of the day.

[i] Check out Richard’s article, particularly Section V.

[ii] LSJ: Greek-English Lexicon 9th Edition

[iii] Naves Study Bible, 1 Corinthians 1:7, Pp. 1567 states in a side note, "Jesus, second coming of (as some interpret), Matt. 1:21. 1. R.V. Revelation" - Clearly a purposeful mistranslation when the word, as they admit, means revelation. This is not the same thing as "coming."

[iv] LSJ: Greek-English Lexicon 9th Edition

[v] Richard Carrier, "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story; Section V: What Do 'Pneumatikos' and 'Psychikos' Mean?"

 Also on this subject, Robert Price has a great chapter which I highly recommend you read in "Jesus is Dead" (2007), on the resurrection in Paul, and this very thing.  It's chapter 12, and it deals with Gary Habermass.  

The best to you,

Rook 

Aside from the fact that none of this is evidence, I can't trust a person who can't even spell my name right with actually understanding the complex nature of historic methodologies.

 Nook, I didn't come in here to argue the evidence. I was merely educating you on the fact that the vast majority of scholars and historians from both the liberal and conservative sides affirm the historicity of Jesus crucifiction. To insult their intelligence and education by asserting they only accept it because they are Christians, is an ad hominem. Some became Christians after analysis of the data. Some are not Christians. And no, you cannot list as many scholars as I have because as I said and proved by the sources I gave, the vast majority of scholars do not hold your position. The sources I gave list many of the scholars who affirm the crucifiction.

Galieo was killed for what was once considered true by a majority of people. Slavery was considered not wrong by the majority of southerners. I can quote more Catholics that claim Protestants are going to Hell then you can quote protestants claiming that protestants aren't going to Hell.

Please present proof that what these guys say is true. At least let me know who these guys are and why I should listen to them.

 Thompson is an Old Testament scholar, not an NT scholar. He needs to stay with what he knows and not pretend to be an authority on a subject out of his area of specialty.

Ok, its late and I'm probably missing something obvious, but why are we talking about Thompson not being a NT sholar? How does this relate to the previous conversation? 

Ok, so when did Thompson pretend to be an authority out of his area of specialty? How do you know that Thompson is not a new testament scholar?

 Because I looked at his credentials. He's an atheist like everyone Rook cites. Only atheists would suggest such outlandish theories. No real unbiased NT scholar or historian denies the historicity of Jesus.  All this "Jesus myth" nonsense is coming from avowed atheists.

First, asshole, Thompson is NOT an atheist.  Secondly, you don't know the meaning of the term 'unbias', and third, I don't want to hear another lie from you or I'm moving all your threads into trollville.

Either present an argument or shut the fuck up. 

Here's a few others which would be worth your read:

What is a Gospel, Talbert (Fortress Press: 1977) - Argues effectively that the Gospels are allegory and scriptural re-interpretation - He's a Christian

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University Press: 2000); Does the New Testament Imitate Homer (Yale University Press: 2003); The Legend and the Apostle (Yale University Press: 1983), Dennis R. McDonald - Argues effectively that the New Testament, especially Luke-Acts and Mark are allegorical hypertexts of Homer's Odessy and the Old Testament - also a theist, although I don't know if he's a Christian

The Jesus Tomb, Robert Price (Prometheus Books: 2005) - Price is a former member of the Jesus Seminar and currently a member of the Jesus Project, of which AL500 has incorrectly stated that they "came to a conclusion that Christ existed" which is false.  That wasn't even part of the Jesus Seminar's objective.  This book argues the mythicist position from a variety of scholars.

 Jesus is Dead, Robert Price (American Atheist Press: 2007) - Argues the Mythicist Position (inexpensive!)

In Quest of the Hero, Alan Dundes (Princeton University Press: 1990) - A folklorist argues against the historicity of Christ based on using Lord Raglan's 'Hero' scale, and compares the legend of Jesus to other legends which are nothing but euhemerized into history.

Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the Gospels, editted by Dungan and Cartlidge (SBL Scholars Press: 1974) - Put out by the JBL, compares various legends earlier then Christianity to the Gospels and other Christian texts.

The jesus the Jews Never Knew, Frank Zindler (American Atheist Press: 2003) - Argues the mythicist position. 

Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts, editted by Turner and Majercik (SBLSymS 12: 2000) - JBL. Argues Gnosticism in the first four centuries CE and how they relate to Christianity 

Redescribing Christian Origins, editted by Cameron and Miller (SBLSym28: 2004) - JBL. Argues for a new way to look at the New Testament, not "responses to the historical Jesus or as generative forces set in motion by singular events and personal revelations" but rather as "reflexive social experiments." (p. 17)

The list is large, but these are more then sufficient to establishing my position.  The best to you. 

Okay let's do this.  Come in the chatroom RIGHT NOW, and we'll have a debate you and I and see who can bring better arguments to the table.  Put out or shut up time.

Wow, this thread really stopped being productive when I left.

Sorry I haven't been on this thread Rook. I was on the Atheist v. Theist for a couple days. I'll be back soon to debate with you again.

 I look forward to some intelligent conversation again, Christos. Show AL500 how to debate.

 The best to you,

Rook 

Hey Rook I see your book recommendations on Jesus, do you think you could tell me which one to start with? I only have the time for one or two books that I can fit into my schedule. Your best suggestion will help.

Thanks and keep kicking ass. 

--never mind--

Prove it. I know you can't because atheists never prove anything. They just invent all kinds of accusations, name calling and allegations. You may consult with the Infidel radio program. They can provide you with a copy of the debate. Sorry it was real. Carrier had no business even dialoguing with someone of Habermas' knowledge and expertise. There's a reason the scholarly community does not take the "Jesus mythers" and people like Carrier seriously.

I happen to have in my possesion the left pinky toe of St. Veronica. I also have St Blaise's vocal cords that have been braided and incorporated into a rosary.

I'd be willing to sell you both at a resonable price, if you are interested.

(this post was so absurd as to almost be dada)

OMG.  I just read through this thread, and I am extremely disappointed with Al500's arguements.  You have never even set up a good arguement, but you claim everyone else has bad arguements.  You are a fucking joke.  You cite random websites, claim you know all about them, but you don't know jack.  Then Rook steps in and pwns you, but you deny it, then say his argeuments are bullshit.  You are just out of proof, which you had none of in the first place, so suck it up and realize that you have NO HISTORICAL PROOF THAT JESUS EVER EXISTED.  You believe in lies, get the FUCK over it.

 Quixie, you lauged at me when I told you about the relics in a Greek monastery. But you didn't refute the fact they are there. You just dismiss them completely prior to examination. The is typical of atheistic bias. Their arguments are never based on evidence, but on ideological biases. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Mount Athos has had in its posession for some time, the nails that pierced Christ, a large segment of the true cross, the head of John the Baptist, and the left foot of Mary Magdaline, which is still preserved with her flesh at body temperature. Many miracles proceed from these relics. These relics have been handed down through the Church. Just because you were unaware of this, does not make it untrue.  Too many skeptics are so full of themselves or their skepticism that they think that if no one has brought it to their attention then it must not exist. As if the world owes them an obligation to spoon feed them every little factoid that stands in the way of their comfortable skepticism.

No problem, I accept that you mistyped the word "unimpressive". Innocuous mistakes like that happen all the time in this digital medium. No worries.

But . . . what about THIS mistake?:

For the sake of clarity, allow me to quote the list in question:

Let's take a look at it. Hmm . . . . let's see . . . . there's Price . . . . there's Wells . . . . and some weird Scandinavian name, Allegård. But . . . would you be so kind as to point out exactly where I mentioned Richard Carrier on that list?

This is only my third exchange with you, sir, yet I have garnered enough evidence in posts to lead me to deduce a couple of things about you:

1 - You don't pay attention to what is actually being said. You seem to prefer to substitute your favorite points in place of whatever data is given to you to examine.

2 - You have a tendency to categorically denounce all scholars who do not accept your evangelical point of view as having an axe to grind, and therefore not really as advancing any tenable evidence to make their case. They are all just "haters" to you, aren't they?

Because of these observations of mine, I am beginning to feel that a productive and earnest discussion with you is not really possible,and have therefore come to the conclusion that, unless you transform into an honest contributor to the discussion regarding these relevant matters, I have no choice but to consider you an antagonistic and infantile troll, unworthy of being taken seriously, though I think you are a good source of comic relief in this forum.

This being the last time I address you personally here, let me deal with your main points on a couple of other posts directed to me, while I have your quasi-attention.

Now, personally, I don't require that people have a doctorate to make them worthy of respect or to make their work somehow more credible, but you can if you want to, I suppose. The problem with this, however, is that using your own logic begs the question:

Do YOU have a doctorate? If not, then why should people listen to you? Just a thought.

Finally,

To this I offer two alternative responses for you to choose from:

number 1 - "No, no, no, sir . . . I was merely making you a business proposition. (the offer is still good, btw ) "

number 2 - "No, no, no, sir . . . I was laughing NEAR you . . . not AT you."

Which is all to say that I am laughing at you right now, a response that I think is quite appropriate in this context. I am justified in doing so by my deep conviction that those that are above correction are certainly not above mockery.

Get well soon,

Ó

Yes, I accidently said Carrier. The reason is probably because everytime I turn around atheists are appealing to him. And no I don't have a doctorate, but I don't need one because I never claimed to be a Jesus historian. Don't quote me on this but I think Price affirms the historicity of Christ, but denies the resurrection. G.A. Wells is the father of the modern "Jesus Myth" hypothesis, but has abandoned it. He now affrms Jesus historicity based on the "Q" document.