Going solely on the physical evidence there is not much to nail down.
There is the spiritual element that many have considered and developed other conclusions. Involving direct revelation that cannot be analyzed physically.
Continuing to look into the topics but not much more to contribute I think, maybe, don't know till I know, I guess. lol...
Even non-Christian groups, well some, acknowledge some sort of Jesus. A Muslim guy I know said Jesus prophesied of Muhammad coming. I don't buy that deal much..... he talked about the comforter... anyways there is probably more to say......
That the story of Thomas is left out of Matthew and Luke should arouse suspicion as to its authenticity. Neither writer had any good reason to leave it out. Same with the raising of Lazarus. Why would anyone recounting the ministry of Jesus leave out that story?
And where TF did Lazarus go? Arimathea?
Good point about the resurrection of Lazarus not being significant enough to be included in the other gospels yet in the gospel of John, this account was so important that it caused many Jews to believe in Jesus and as a result, the chief priests discussed killing Lazarus as well.
Concerning what happened to Lazarus in the rest of the gospel, Richard Carrier has something to say about this.
At the 42:25 mark in his video Why the Gospels are MythCarrier shows that Lazarus (not John) was the disciple whom Jesus loved and that his presence is noted at Jesus' crucifixion (19:26), the empty tomb (20:2-9) and after Jesus' resurrection (21:7).
Then at the 46:00 mark, he makes an argument that the writer(s) of John turned the parabolic Lazarus into a real person in order to correct the problem they saw in Luke explaing why no one actually returns from the dead. (However, I'm not sure that is what Luke 16:26 and 31 is saying.)
Paul brags that he never learned anything from the apostles. He says everything he got, he got directly from Jesus in visions (Galatians 1:11-24). With a historic Jesus, this makes no sense. Who would BRAG about not learning from the apostles? Paul did. It does not make sense that a movement founded by Jesus of Nazareth would launch the baton over the people closest to him and hand it to someone Jesus had never met.
Imagine the audacity of saying I know the will of Jesus without having to consult the people who were closest to him!
The 12 apostles would have shut Paul down.
Paul mentions NOTHING about the actual life of Jesus. His description of the death and resurrection bear no resemblance to the gospel accounts (which had not yet been made up). His proofs of the resurrection fail to mention an empty tomb, which at the time would have been a big deal.
Have you heard of Dr. David Skrbina who wrote “The Jesus Hoax?”His theory is that Paul, with the help of some who ministered with him, deliberately constructed the lie that the historical Jesus was the savior of humanity.In other words, Paul knew his epistles were not true.His purpose was to go up against the Roman Empire and weaken the influence it had on the common people.
I’ve watched the MythVision video where Skrbina explains all this including where the gospels fit into this “hoax.” He also deals with arguments people have against his writings and continues to invite more feedback.A lot is covered so I plan to listen to it again.
At this point, I'm just wondering if you've heard of his ideas and if so, what you think of them.
Have you heard of Dr. David Skrbina who wrote “The Jesus Hoax?”His theory is that Paul, with the help of some who ministered with him, deliberately constructed the lie that the historical Jesus was the savior of humanity.In other words, Paul knew his epistles were not true.His purpose was to go up against the Roman Empire and weaken the influence it had on the common people.
I’ve watched the MythVision video where Skrbina explains all this including where the gospels fit into this “hoax.” He also deals with arguments people have against his writings and continues to invite more feedback.A lot is covered so I plan to listen to it again.
At this point, I'm just wondering if you've heard of his ideas and if so, what you think of them.
I have not. My instinct is not to give it much credence. Paul appears to be a true believer in the completed work of Christ Jesus. He just doesn't seem to know anything about a Jesus who was physically present on earth. He never speaks of Christ's "return," for example, only of his "presence." He never calls it the "second coming."
At the 42:25 mark in his video Why the Gospels are MythCarrier shows that Lazarus (not John) was the disciple whom Jesus loved and that his presence is noted at Jesus' crucifixion (19:26), the empty tomb (20:2-9) and after Jesus' resurrection (21:7).
I did notice in Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" he did agree with VPW that Lazarus, not John, was the disciple Jesus loved.
I did notice in Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" he did agree with VPW that Lazarus, not John, was the disciple Jesus loved.
Some may twist this phrasing into a validation of victor's "work." Carrier isn't necessarily agreeing with victor, rather, he is agreeing with a position that long predates victor. Victor and Carrier, among others, share this opinion.
Charity, I have given that topic no thought at all other than to recognize the agreed upon conclusion.
Wierwille doesn't belong in the same conversation as a legit scholar like Carrier. Even Ehrman, who firmly disagrees with Carrier, doesn't doubt his expertise or qualifications. Ehrman DOES doubt Carrier's conclusions, and vice versa
Some may twist this phrasing into a validation of victor's "work." Carrier isn't necessarily agreeing with victor, rather, he is agreeing with a position that long predates victor. Victor and Carrier, among others, share this opinion.
"with a position that long predates victor"
Question: was there ever an exhaustive attempt on a thread at GS uncovering all or most of the origins of VPW's teachings? Thx.
Raf here, too lazy to switch logins:
I'm not aware of any "exhaustive" effort, and I'm not willing to re-search that (meaning I have done some searching). I know there was a lot of Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles and Leonard, of course. I don't know if anyone's ever tried to put them all in one thread.
Question: was there ever an exhaustive attempt on a thread at GS uncovering all or most of the origins of VPW's teachings? Thx.
I don't know if there is a dedicated thread, but many, many, many threads have shown the origins of victor's "teachings." As you know, and as it has been shown, most of what he "taught" came directly, without credit or shame, from B. G. Leonard, E. W. Bullinger, J. E. Styles, E. W. Kenyon, and George "T6TMOG" Lamsa. Copied and pasted.
The balance comes from traditional forms of Christianity, both mainstream and fringe, 19th to mid-20th century New Thought, fundamental seminarian scholarship, and whatever else his imagination could hold.
I wouldn't expect a priest or pastor to cite all of her sources during a sermon. But if that minister is pressed by an earnest seeker, I suspect she might, if her answers are unsatisfying, point that seeker to read other authorities (Origen, Augustine, Luther, Bruce Metzger?) who may better articulate an answer.
The real problem we have here is that victor himself claimed his only sources were his own inexhaustible, 18-hours-per-day-for-40-years study and God Almighty. Any apparent extraneous sources were merely coincidental. In PFAL he claims he had already come to the conclusions of Bullinger before ever reading Bullinger.
Ummm... riiiiiiiight.
When one endeavors to find out for oneself with meekness and honesty, one can only discover that the actual sources behind his fraudulent claims of "research" and "study" are often inaccurate themselves. Furthermore, his own private interpretations and "revelations" and hopeful imaginations are the most egregiously, demonstrably errant of all.
When I say errant, I mean stupid. I'm not talking about vanilla plain stupidity. No, I'm talking about four-crucified stupidity - the stupidest. And not just five-senses stupidity. No, worse: spiritual stupidity.
Paul brags that he never learned anything from the apostles. He says everything he got, he got directly from Jesus in visions (Galatians 1:11-24). With a historic Jesus, this makes no sense. Who would BRAG about not learning from the apostles? Paul did. It does not make sense that a movement founded by Jesus of Nazareth would launch the baton over the people closest to him and hand it to someone Jesus had never met.
Imagine the audacity of saying I know the will of Jesus without having to consult the people who were closest to him!
The 12 apostles would have shut Paul down.
On 2/16/2024 at 3:56 PM, Raf said:
But to Paul, everything about Jesus is cosmic. None of it happens on earth. Jesus isn't killed by Pilate and the Romans. He's killed by the princes of this world, who would not have done it had they known the consequences.
It's not until the gospel writers, LONG after Paul, that we see stories of Jesus as an actual human being. They took what he wrote and historicized it.
Honestly, if not for Paul referring to James as "the Lord's brother," I would be utterly convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a fictional character (not just that he wasn't who he claimed to be, but that he was never around to claim it, as historical as King Arthur and Odysseus).
On 2/17/2024 at 10:22 AM, waysider said:
Is it just me, or did anyone else ever consider that Paul might have been a nutjob?
On 2/17/2024 at 1:44 PM, Raf said:
The thought did cross my mind
On 6/24/2024 at 4:23 PM, Raf said:
Paul appears to be a true believer in the completed work of Christ Jesus. He just doesn't seem to know anything about a Jesus who was physically present on earth. He never speaks of Christ's "return," for example, only of his "presence." He never calls it the "second coming."
Assuming that Paul's cosmic Jesus was all made up in his head, then there must be a reason for him to truly believe in his own writings. What would be his motive then other than to start his own church most likely for political reasons?
I can see the same motive possibly holding true for the writers of the gospels and their myth-filled historicities of Jesus yet according to Ehrman, their accounts of what Jesus taught about salvation differed from what Paul taught. For example. However, Paul's teaching is what Christianity was eventually built upon.
OTOH, Wierwille's explanation for the differences btw the gospels and Paul's epistles was that Jesus was not God and therefore did not know about the great mystery being hid in God. He learned of it after his resurrection and/or ascension and then revealed it to Paul.
Assuming that Paul's cosmic Jesus was all made up in his head, then there must be a reason for him to truly believe in his own writings. What would be his motive then other than to start his own church most likely for political reasons?
One possible reason was to bring about the eschaton. Bringing the nations into the fold, grafting them into the vine with Israel, is a necessary step in fulfilling the divine plan, right? Isn't there a passage about this in Isaiah? Maybe I'm misremembering.
Paul was certain he knew Gad's timeline (he knew that he knew that he knew), and it was all coming to an end any minute. Except it didn't.
Not sure who wins this debate, if anyone. For entertainment purposes only.
On 2/28/2024 at 7:28 PM, Raf said:
20 hours ago, Raf said:
Charity, I have given that topic no thought at all other than to recognize the agreed upon conclusion.
Wierwille doesn't belong in the same conversation as a legit scholar like Carrier. Even Ehrman, who firmly disagrees with Carrier, doesn't doubt his expertise or qualifications. Ehrman DOES doubt Carrier's conclusions, and vice versa
Thx for the videos - I've now listened to both of them and can see how a harmony amongst the scholars concerning the existence of Jesus is as impossible as vp's fundamentalist attempts to harmonize the gospels . (I wonder if the current twi still pushes this idea.) Unlike Wierwille, however, these men freely admit it is impossible to be sure of their viewpoints 100 percent (*except now for MacDonald as mentioned below).
With Ehrman and Price, I felt Ehrman had a better argument mostly because I could understand what he was saying concerning the bible, and he spoke clearly. Price, otoh, made little sense to me because I have not read up on the mythical sources he was using - something I need to do if I want to be a better judge on such debates.
The same with Carrier and MacDonald. Other than the posts on this thread, I know little about the writings of Josephus and nothing about the 'Q' document(s), both of which MacDonald heavily learned on to support his argument. I could follow Carrier at times but not near the end when he and MacDonald were going back and forth.
(*This debate was in 2020 and since then, Carrier continues to think there is a 1 in 3 chance that there was a historical Jesus, but he said in 2022 that MacDonald has changed his stance that the odds of Jesus having never existed from 1 in 12 to calling mythicism “preposterous” and “not even worth” discussing. He explains the probable reason for MacDonald's new view here.)
All in all, regardless of the disagreements amongst these scholars, the fact that the NT is not the inherent and accurate word of God comes through clearly, imo.
One possible reason was to bring about the eschaton. Bringing the nations into the fold, grafting them into the vine with Israel, is a necessary step in fulfilling the divine plan, right? Isn't there a passage about this in Isaiah? Maybe I'm misremembering.
Paul was certain he knew Gad's timeline (he knew that he knew that he knew), and it was all coming to an end any minute. Except it didn't.
That's a very good reason. According to Wikipedia on the topic of eschatology, "eschatological passages occur in many places in the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old Testament, apocalyptic eschatology can be found notably in Isaiah 24–27, Isaiah 56–66, Joel, Zechariah 9–14 as well as in the closing chapters of Daniel, and in Ezekiel."
I understand there are quite a few reasons given for the necessity of a divine end times - one of them that sticks out to me is to keep people in obedience lest they be punished at the final judgment. This makes sense from the viewpoint of a "righteous judge" such as yahweh, but what was in it for the men who invented these passages, especially the NT ones about Jesus?
Has it always been for the purpose of using fear to control the masses so the ones at the top can have all the power and the riches?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
63
36
29
27
Popular Days
Feb 25
41
Feb 27
25
Mar 3
17
Feb 29
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 63 posts
cman 36 posts
chockfull 29 posts
Nathan_Jr 27 posts
Popular Days
Feb 25 2024
41 posts
Feb 27 2024
25 posts
Mar 3 2024
17 posts
Feb 29 2024
12 posts
Popular Posts
cman
I doubt your conclusions Raf, though I respect your right to voice them.
Rocky
Hallelujah!
Nathan_Jr
Been thinking about why Peter and James didn't squash Paul. Who knows... Maybe because they had received intimate, secret training. Maybe they had been taught to guard the secrets and were warned
Posted Images
cman
All true, raf...
Going solely on the physical evidence there is not much to nail down.
There is the spiritual element that many have considered and developed other conclusions. Involving direct revelation that cannot be analyzed physically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Continuing to look into the topics but not much more to contribute I think, maybe, don't know till I know, I guess. lol...
Even non-Christian groups, well some, acknowledge some sort of Jesus. A Muslim guy I know said Jesus prophesied of Muhammad coming. I don't buy that deal much..... he talked about the comforter... anyways there is probably more to say......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I wouldn't put much stock in what Muslims think is historical. They accept as historical that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse.
Oh yeah? Prove it didn't happen!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
How about the Shroud of Turin? Here's a piece that says it should be thought of differently than a hoax:
New evidence supporting Shroud too strong to ignore (catholicweekly.com.au)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
From The Catholic Weekly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
well....I consider the Muslim point of view but they go by the book, their book of course so not interested in that at all..
what really set off the spirit for me was considering the Buddhist teachings, and Hindu then ironically the teachings from the churches of my youth...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Good point about the resurrection of Lazarus not being significant enough to be included in the other gospels yet in the gospel of John, this account was so important that it caused many Jews to believe in Jesus and as a result, the chief priests discussed killing Lazarus as well.
Concerning what happened to Lazarus in the rest of the gospel, Richard Carrier has something to say about this.
At the 42:25 mark in his video Why the Gospels are Myth Carrier shows that Lazarus (not John) was the disciple whom Jesus loved and that his presence is noted at Jesus' crucifixion (19:26), the empty tomb (20:2-9) and after Jesus' resurrection (21:7).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Have you heard of Dr. David Skrbina who wrote “The Jesus Hoax?” His theory is that Paul, with the help of some who ministered with him, deliberately constructed the lie that the historical Jesus was the savior of humanity. In other words, Paul knew his epistles were not true. His purpose was to go up against the Roman Empire and weaken the influence it had on the common people.
I’ve watched the MythVision video where Skrbina explains all this including where the gospels fit into this “hoax.” He also deals with arguments people have against his writings and continues to invite more feedback. A lot is covered so I plan to listen to it again.
The Jesus Hoax (About his book and includes chapter 1)
MythVision Podcast - The Jesus Hoax with Dr. David Skrbina
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I have not. My instinct is not to give it much credence. Paul appears to be a true believer in the completed work of Christ Jesus. He just doesn't seem to know anything about a Jesus who was physically present on earth. He never speaks of Christ's "return," for example, only of his "presence." He never calls it the "second coming."
But that's my thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I did notice in Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" he did agree with VPW that Lazarus, not John, was the disciple Jesus loved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
What are your thoughts about what Carrier says?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Some may twist this phrasing into a validation of victor's "work." Carrier isn't necessarily agreeing with victor, rather, he is agreeing with a position that long predates victor. Victor and Carrier, among others, share this opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thank you for the correction, Nathan.
Charity, I have given that topic no thought at all other than to recognize the agreed upon conclusion.
Wierwille doesn't belong in the same conversation as a legit scholar like Carrier. Even Ehrman, who firmly disagrees with Carrier, doesn't doubt his expertise or qualifications. Ehrman DOES doubt Carrier's conclusions, and vice versa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
"with a position that long predates victor"
Question: was there ever an exhaustive attempt on a thread at GS uncovering all or most of the origins of VPW's teachings? Thx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Shirley, you jest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I do recall some, brain farts and all..
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Raf here, too lazy to switch logins:
I'm not aware of any "exhaustive" effort, and I'm not willing to re-search that (meaning I have done some searching). I know there was a lot of Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles and Leonard, of course. I don't know if anyone's ever tried to put them all in one thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I don't know if there is a dedicated thread, but many, many, many threads have shown the origins of victor's "teachings." As you know, and as it has been shown, most of what he "taught" came directly, without credit or shame, from B. G. Leonard, E. W. Bullinger, J. E. Styles, E. W. Kenyon, and George "T6TMOG" Lamsa. Copied and pasted.
The balance comes from traditional forms of Christianity, both mainstream and fringe, 19th to mid-20th century New Thought, fundamental seminarian scholarship, and whatever else his imagination could hold.
I wouldn't expect a priest or pastor to cite all of her sources during a sermon. But if that minister is pressed by an earnest seeker, I suspect she might, if her answers are unsatisfying, point that seeker to read other authorities (Origen, Augustine, Luther, Bruce Metzger?) who may better articulate an answer.
The real problem we have here is that victor himself claimed his only sources were his own inexhaustible, 18-hours-per-day-for-40-years study and God Almighty. Any apparent extraneous sources were merely coincidental. In PFAL he claims he had already come to the conclusions of Bullinger before ever reading Bullinger.
Ummm... riiiiiiiight.
When one endeavors to find out for oneself with meekness and honesty, one can only discover that the actual sources behind his fraudulent claims of "research" and "study" are often inaccurate themselves. Furthermore, his own private interpretations and "revelations" and hopeful imaginations are the most egregiously, demonstrably errant of all.
When I say errant, I mean stupid. I'm not talking about vanilla plain stupidity. No, I'm talking about four-crucified stupidity - the stupidest. And not just five-senses stupidity. No, worse: spiritual stupidity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Assuming that Paul's cosmic Jesus was all made up in his head, then there must be a reason for him to truly believe in his own writings. What would be his motive then other than to start his own church most likely for political reasons?
I can see the same motive possibly holding true for the writers of the gospels and their myth-filled historicities of Jesus yet according to Ehrman, their accounts of what Jesus taught about salvation differed from what Paul taught. For example. However, Paul's teaching is what Christianity was eventually built upon.
OTOH, Wierwille's explanation for the differences btw the gospels and Paul's epistles was that Jesus was not God and therefore did not know about the great mystery being hid in God. He learned of it after his resurrection and/or ascension and then revealed it to Paul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
One possible reason was to bring about the eschaton. Bringing the nations into the fold, grafting them into the vine with Israel, is a necessary step in fulfilling the divine plan, right? Isn't there a passage about this in Isaiah? Maybe I'm misremembering.
Paul was certain he knew Gad's timeline (he knew that he knew that he knew), and it was all coming to an end any minute. Except it didn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thx for the videos - I've now listened to both of them and can see how a harmony amongst the scholars concerning the existence of Jesus is as impossible as vp's fundamentalist attempts to harmonize the gospels
. (I wonder if the current twi still pushes this idea.) Unlike Wierwille, however, these men freely admit it is impossible to be sure of their viewpoints 100 percent (*except now for MacDonald as mentioned below).
With Ehrman and Price, I felt Ehrman had a better argument mostly because I could understand what he was saying concerning the bible, and he spoke clearly. Price, otoh, made little sense to me because I have not read up on the mythical sources he was using - something I need to do if I want to be a better judge on such debates.
The same with Carrier and MacDonald. Other than the posts on this thread, I know little about the writings of Josephus and nothing about the 'Q' document(s), both of which MacDonald heavily learned on to support his argument. I could follow Carrier at times but not near the end when he and MacDonald were going back and forth.
(*This debate was in 2020 and since then, Carrier continues to think there is a 1 in 3 chance that there was a historical Jesus, but he said in 2022 that MacDonald has changed his stance that the odds of Jesus having never existed from 1 in 12 to calling mythicism “preposterous” and “not even worth” discussing. He explains the probable reason for MacDonald's new view here.)
All in all, regardless of the disagreements amongst these scholars, the fact that the NT is not the inherent and accurate word of God comes through clearly, imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
That's a very good reason. According to Wikipedia on the topic of eschatology, "eschatological passages occur in many places in the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old Testament, apocalyptic eschatology can be found notably in Isaiah 24–27, Isaiah 56–66, Joel, Zechariah 9–14 as well as in the closing chapters of Daniel, and in Ezekiel."
I understand there are quite a few reasons given for the necessity of a divine end times - one of them that sticks out to me is to keep people in obedience lest they be punished at the final judgment. This makes sense from the viewpoint of a "righteous judge" such as yahweh, but what was in it for the men who invented these passages, especially the NT ones about Jesus?
Has it always been for the purpose of using fear to control the masses so the ones at the top can have all the power and the riches?
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.