Corpus-Paul

["Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>]

RE: Zeba Crook's assumption that Jesus did not exist:

Proving a negative can be done only if all evidence for the positive is
dismantled/disproven. The Jesus-didn't-exist theorists fail to come close to
doing that.

Especially, they fail to demonstrate that Paul's references to Jesus, which
were stated by Paul in letters he wrote to Jesus-followers within two
decades of this presumed man's death, were referring to a person who had
never even existed. If Jesus had not existed at all, then it is hardly
likely that those Pauline references to him would have possessed any
credibility among those readers in that era.

To say that Paul distorted Jesus can be taken seriously. To say that Jesus
did not exist at all, simply cannot.

To say that Paul picked up on an existing religious organization founded by
a historical Jesus, and exploited that movement for his own purposes, so as
to replace it with his own, can certainly be taken seriously. To say that
Paul invented even that movement's very existence, and did not replace it
but instead created it entirely out of his imagination, cannot.

Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net


Eric Zuesse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zeba Crook" <zeba.crook AT utoronto.ca>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:17 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Doherty Debate


> 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
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: cettel AT shoreham.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>