Corpus-Paul

[Zeba Crook <zeba.crook AT utoronto.ca>]

I'm not sure I agree either that Jesus did not actually exist, but it appears 
that
yours and Mr. Burkheimer's objections (since he couldn't actually think of 
any himself)
are strictly theological.  There are a series of statements below that do not 
address
the issue, but seem only to illustrate your discomfort.

Eric Zuesse wrote:

> These nay-sayers can and do show earlier, pagan, precedents for much of 
> Christianity,
> such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Trinity, Christmas, Buddha, 
> etc., but
> that does not get to the deeper and more powerful issue of explaining 
> Christianity,
> which is far more than a mere assemblage of such prior archetypes and 
> mythologies.

This is a theological position, and certainly does not seem to me to 
contradict in any
logical sense the position you're trying to dismantle.

> Especially the naysayers fail to deal with and cannot explain such central 
> facts
> about Christianity as that Mark's account centers around the supposed 
> evilness of the
> proponents of the Jewish Law or covenant and the contrary virtuousness of 
> people who
> rely on faith, and that the entire Jewish people are condemned throughout 
> the New
> Testament for Jesus's crucifixion while there isn't so much as a hint there 
> of
> condemnation of all Romans for that execution, and not even the Emperor 
> himself is
> blamed for it, even though it was his system of order and command that was 
> being
> challenged by Jesus's claim to be the God-anointed King of the Jews and 
> heir to King
> David and to his slingshot that killed Goliath (and that might yet 
> overthrow the
> Roman Goliath). Furthermore, Jesus is presented out of all context of other 
> Jewish
> claimants to the Jewish throne, all of whom, it appears, Rome likewise 
> executed.

How does this prove the reality of Jesus.  I don't understand; are you 
presenting this
as a critique of the mythical Jesus position?

>
>
> None of those naysaying books deals in any serious way with the politics of
> the situation. According to Josephus, the war that was raging throughout
> Jesus's lifetime between the Romans and the Jews was the greatest war in all
> of history. It might not have been that, but still, the destruction of
> Jerusalem in 70 CE shows that it was at least a contender. And yet the New
> Testament ignores that reality and presents Jesus as a "Prince of Peace" who
> would bring peace *before* overthrowing Goliath, and not *afterwards* as
> King David had done according to the precedent Jewish myth.

First of all, the NT does not ignore the reality of the Jewish war, and 
secondly, how
is this evidence that Jesus was not only mythical?

I'd recommend reading B.L. Mack's new book, _The Christian Myth_.  It's more 
nuanced
and it sounds to my like a more intelligent program than the mythical Jesus, 
but is
likely to ruffle as many feathers.

Cheers,

***

Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
University of St. Michael's College
Faculty of Theology
81 St. Mary Street
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5S 1J4

(416) 964-8629
http://individual.utoronto.ca/zeba_crook