Did Jesus Exist?

[GakuseiDon]

When GakusieDon speaks of me (Neil Godfrey) as thinking that criticisms of the Christ-mythicism position as "virtually akin to lying" he is the one who is in fact lying. I challenge GDon to cite any evidence other than his own and James McGrath's childish snickerings to support his accusation.

I wrote "virtually akin to conspiracy", not "virtually akin to lying". Sheesh. So quick with accusations of lying. That's proof right there, if your accusations about Alex above aren't already. I give some more quotes from you below, also.

I have made it perfectly clear that addressing the man rather than the argument is surely by any standard "ad hominem" and this is exactly the way the one who calls him/herself "AlexBP" insists on carrying on his/her argument.

Alex's post is above. How on earth is asking about someone's qualifications "ad hominem"? If Doherty responded and someone said "that's a terrible school, thus your argument is bad!" then yes, that would be a classic adhom. But to politely ask for someone's qualifications? What makes that an adhom, Neil? Nothing.

Back to your bizarre accusations against those arguing against mythicism. The first hint is when you accused me of a "personal vendetta" against you and Doherty back in Feb 2010, here:

"So GakuseiDon now chooses to take his personal vendetta with me and Doherty over to this forum here."
​

This was at a time that I barely knew who you were. And I have no idea how my debates with Doherty made for a "personal vendetta". I have no idea who Doherty is, and I don't care. I've never asked him about himself, or his qualifications, or anything personal.

Then you started making weird accusations to McGrath that somehow he was getting his ideas about Doherty from me... and McGrath had no idea who I was!

Here are some more quotes from you about McGrath and those who question mythicism:

From here:

"McGrath routinely avoids engaging with the points of mythicism in a debate and attempts to smokescreen this tactic by launching an offensive on a point of his choosing (usually concocted by a semantic twist and flavoured with denigration and innuendo) that deftly distracts attention from the vacuity of his own position."
​

On how mythicists are treated, from here

We see in McGrath’s treatment of mythicism the same tactics used by biblical scholarship for over a century now — dismiss, ignore, poo-pooh the radical arguments, but never engage them seriously. Always put the fear of denigration into anyone who might be temtped to flirt with them...

I could ignore McGrath when he decides to post blatant falsehoods about my arguments on his blog... He is either so viscerally bigoted that he simply cannot comprehend any argument that comes within a cooee of “mythicism”, and refuses on principle to give any person making such an argument the benefit of even being capable of making a valid point, or he has some problem with lying straight in bed.​

From here

Steph is learning well how to fit in with the likes of Gibson and Fredriksen and McGrath and their dishonest treatment of Doherty’s work, not to mention their unscholarly insulting and abusive manner.
​

In that same link, someone says:

Neil, I think you might get a more impartial hearing for your case if you would hold back on the ad hominems against McGrath, Casey, Crossley, Fredriksen, Gibson, Hoffman, Steph, etc... (interesting that this list, besides McGrath, are secular or Jewish scholars, as the huge majority of Jewish or secular biblical scholars agree on the question of historicity)...​

To which you responded:

My severe references to certain names is directly related to those same scholars who have demonstrated unprofessional and even culpably dishonest responses to the discussion of historical methodology.
​

And then your comment to Steph:

Why must scholars like yourself and McGrath and Crossley and Fredriksen be rude and offensive when mythicism is discussed? Is it a cover deflect attention from your logical flaws and circularity of your arguments?
​

From here "Joel Watts stoops to lies and slander":

What sorts of people are these Christian scholars/bloggers? How on earth do they maintain any respect in the community? Joel is effectively saying he doesn’t have to waste time being honest or truthful when saying anything about me!
​

Are these the sorts of guys who in another time and place would have freely and without conscience killed atheists or other critics of their faith?...

[Joel Watts] has no conscience and appears to be a compulsive liar when it comes to me or atheists or jesus mythicists in general.
​

From here "More charlantry from a biblical professor on mythicism"

[McGrath] is not an honest intelocuteur. Every school ground has at least one who finds it necessary to make his mark by ridicule and intellectual bullying rather than respectful dialogue.
​

There's lots more there, too. This didn't take long to compile. I suppose even paranoid people have enemies; still, you either have had bad luck in that everyone who questions you on mythicism is a liar, deals in 'dishonest treatment' of Doherty's work, etc, etc. Or maybe the problem is closer to home.

Tell me, have you come across anyone who has extensively questioned mythicism in general or Doherty in particular who is NOT a liar, intellectually dishonest, or doesn't have a personal vendetta? If the answer is "generally no", why do you think that is? Why do so many scholars lie about mythicism and mythicist arguments, in your opinion?

 

[her2011]

I am not sure if this is a trick question, but I will try and answer anyways.

Saul/Paul doesn't speak of Jesus as a man of this world, as he never knew him before his crucifixion. He probably knew 'of' him. But he was not there with the disciples during the calming of the storm etc.

Jesus spoke to Saul in a flash of light, and he had a vision. which came true. The Holy Spirit also spoke to him.

He speaks of Jesus as a Godly figure as that is what his experience of him was.

--
Forgive me if I am being thick, I don't have time to search scripture, as I have kids to deal with here but I had to answer that to keep tabs on it.

 

[AlexBP]

When GakusieDon speaks of me (Neil Godfrey) as thinking that criticisms of the Christ-mythicism position as "virtually akin to lying" he is the one who is in fact lying. I challenge GDon to cite any evidence other than his own and James McGrath's childish snickerings to support his accusation.

GakuseiDon has now done exactly that.

I have made it perfectly clear that addressing the man rather than the argument is surely by any standard "ad hominem" and this is exactly the way the one who calls him/herself "AlexBP" insists on carrying on his/her argument.

GakuseiDon has already responded to that as well. I posted two questions, one asking Doherty what university he attended and one asking him why he interpreted Romans 1:3 in the way he did. How exactly does this constitute "ad hominem"? (Let me guess: by asking you to explain why my comments are "ad hominem", I'm being "ad hominem"? It seems that whining about how insulted you are is the only thing you're capable of doing when somebody asks you a question.)

"AlexBP" (whoever you are) -- I have offered a detailed response to your comments on my blog, and you have even said I have given you much to respond to. Kindly indicate on that blog where in specific detail you have actually responded to my comments.

your first post gave me much to respond to and I did so clearly in a reply. Your second post gave a lot less, basically challenging me to identify myself. (Name: Alex Popkin, degree: M.A. from Vanderbilt, 2007) More importantly, Earl Doherty responded to my post:

“Perhaps Paul is using kata to refer to something like ‘in the sphere of the flesh’ and ‘in the sphere of the spirit.’ This is a suggestion put forward by CK Barrett.”
is NOT “in regard to Romans 1:3”, it is to both verses 3 and 4, the latter containing the phrase “kata pneuma”.

So I said 1:3 when I should have said 1:3-4, a mistake but an utterly trivial one. Other than he only accused me of being "garbled", which you can read my post above and judge for yourself whether it was garbled. But I wrote out my question at length in reply #13. You then deleted #13, and now you're accusing me of not writing replies, and at the same time you're bragging about being honest and calling me dishonest.

Why should I write replies on your website when you're just going to delete them and then claim that I didn't write them? It's obvious that your modus operandi is to insist that mythicism is true, hurl juvenile insults at anyone who disagrees, and then delete from your website any challenge to your views before any of your readers have a chance to read them. I am perfectly willing to continue debating here where you don't have the power to delete challenges to yourself. Please begin by answering these two questions:

1) From what university did Earl doherty receive his degree?

2) What justification is there for interpreting Romans 1:3 the way that Doherty does, rather than the way that scholars do?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why should I write replies on your [Vardis's] website when you're just going to delete them and then claim that I didn't write them?

Uh, could you fellows find a venue where you can actually discuss this? Vardis is not allowed to post here, since the forum says that only the opening poster can engage the Christian position. If Vardis's site is not appropriate for the discussion, then how about the secular web?

Having a one-sided discussion here in which Vardis cannot participate is not appropriate, nor would a one-side discussion anywhere be apropriate.

Can I ask you to please find a place where you can both participate, and move that discussion there?

Thanks!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Time for a little thought experiment.

Let's imagine that you meet some folks who tell you that Martin Luther King never existed, that he is simply a mythical character representing the civil rights movement. What! You were actually at all his rallys! You had dinner with him! You were a personal friend of MLK. In fact you often refer to yourself as "The Man whom MLK Befriended" instead of your real name, William. Well you will have none of this. You decide to set the record straight. You jump on the Internet and post:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Martin Luther King has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Martin Luther Kings is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
​

There! That ought to resolve it! You will tell those evil Martin Luther King deniers what you think of them! There is no need to mention the headlines, the rallys, the great speeches, or the tears. You will just tell them they better believe it if they want to be on God's side. With such impeccable logic on your side, you have resolved the issue.

To your great dismay you meet more people who deny that Martin Luther King ever existed on earth. They say he was actually an angel, a mythical representative of the spirit of the civil rights movement. And you find folks who actually eat dinner with those evil people who deny the life of MLK! What! You rush quickly back on the Internet; It's time for another post, which you call 2 William:

Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge MLK as coming in the flesh This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of MLK, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and MLK. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
​

Ah, that should fix it. No need to tell people you had dinner with MLK on the night before his death. No need to mention the thousands who attended his rallys. With threats like the above, you are sure to frighten everybody into believing you!

You are on a roll now, but you do notice that your Internet nemesis, Diotrephes, has flamed you. Angrily you dash off another post, 3 William:

Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. Diotrephes is a big fat jerk.
​

There. You put him in his place! No need to add any actual new content to the post. You flamed Diotrephes, and that's that.

Little do you know that centuries from now, somebody will write a phone app that allows people to load a specific selection of writings on their phones and carry them everywhere they go. You would never guess that your post flaming Diotrephes will be included in that app. Millions of pople would carry that post everywhere they go, having no idea who Diotrephes was or what he said, but they would always have access to your post flaming Diotrephes. If you and Diotrephes had only known this was going to happen, and if Diotrephes had a sense of humor, I image you and he would forget your flame war, and roll on the floor laughing.

But I digress.

Yes, of course, the above quotes are modifications of the Bible (I John 4:1-6 , 2 John 1:7-11 and 3 John 1:8-10). King's name was substitued for Jesus. (And yes, the last sentence in 3 William has no analogy in 3 John.)

How can you explain the passages in 1 John and 2 John? How, within 60 years of the life of God Incarnate on earth in close contact with many people, can people possibly be claiming that Jesus wasn't human? If they hadn't heard the story, isn't that the occasion for sharing the facts with them? Why condemn them if they haven't heard the story?

Notice the issue isn't that they said Jesus never existed. The issue is that they say he had not come in the flesh. In other words, John seems to be condemning believers in a mythical Jesus. That is easy to explain if Christianity began with a mythical Jesus, but writers like "John" taught that Jesus had been a spirit being that had somehow taken on flesh. But how can you explain this if it began with a man on earth?

Since the story of Martin Luther King began with a man, can you see how nobody could expect to convince folks that he was really an angel? But "John" complains that folks were claiming a Jesus not of flesh.

And how can you explain the great missionary movement? Just imagine poor fishermen from Judea walking around the empire and saying that their buddy rose from the dead and soared into the clouds, never to be seen again. Imagine that they proclaim that this proves that their buddy was God incarnate, and is now in heaven on the right hand of the Father. Can you imagine the reception?

Think about it. Imagine a man walks up to you tomorrow from a remote village in Mexico, telling you that his buddy rose from the dead, that his buddy is God's Son, and that his buddy died for your sins. Do you believe him? Will you join in singing hymns about this man's buddy every Sunday?

In the book of Romans, Paul writes to the Christians in Rome. Where in the heck did they come from? Paul had not even been to Rome yet. Did a ragtag group walk into Rome from Judea, and convince them all that their friend had risen from the dead, and was worthy of worship? Had the sophisticated Romans accepted this, and then lost interest in the man's actual life, only to sit around sharing theological thoughts about the meaning of the risen Christ?

Or did it all begin with a "risen" mythical Christ?

Maybe Christianity began with a mythical Christ spread throughout a Hellenistic world among poeple who had no problem with mythical emanations of God.

 

[GakuseiDon]

Uh, could you fellows find a venue where you can actually discuss this? Vardis is not allowed to post here, since the forum says that only the opening poster can engage the Christian position. If Vardis's site is not appropriate for the discussion, then how about the secular web?

Having a one-sided discussion here in which Vardis cannot participate is not appropriate, nor would a one-side discussion anywhere be apropriate.

Merle, that's a bit unfair. You are the one continually bringing up Doherty. According to the rules of the forum, this thread should be about YOUR questions, not Doherty's. If you understand Doherty's points, then there is no need to bring up his name. If you don't understand Doherty's points, then shouldn't you do so before bringing them up here?

But if you continue to post links to Doherty's website and asking people to respond to articles on his website, then what we've seen here above is inevitable.

So please stop linking to Doherty. Use his points if you like, but this thread is for your understanding and your questions about Christianity. Invite Doherty to start his own thread if you want to see his points addressed.

 

[GakuseiDon]

How can you explain the passages in 1 John and 2 John? How, within 60 years of the life of God Incarnate on earth in close contact with many people, can people possibly be claiming that Jesus wasn't human?

You may not be aware of the docetists. They had a problem with flesh. They saw it as being corrupt. So they posited that Jesus -- who was perfect -- couldn't have been flesh.

If they hadn't heard the story, isn't that the occasion for sharing the facts with them? Why condemn them if they haven't heard the story?

What story? Marcion used his own version of the Gospel of Luke. With some differences dealing with the "flesh" controversy, the story was the same.

Notice the issue isn't that they said Jesus never existed. The issue is that they say he had not come in the flesh. In other words, John seems to be condemning believers in a mythical Jesus.

No, John was condemning believers in a Jesus who hadn't come in the flesh. Just like he wrote.

But wait a minute. According to you, didn't Paul believe in a mythical Jesus who came in the flesh? So how on earth can John be condemning believers in a mythical Jesus by complaining that they DIDN'T believe in a Jesus who came in the flesh? Can you make any sense of that logic? Because I can't. If you think your thought experiment is valid, then coming "in the flesh" means that thinking the person is not mythical.

And how can you explain the great missionary movement? Just imagine poor fishermen from Judea walking around the empire and saying that their buddy rose from the dead and soared into the clouds, never to be seen again. Imagine that they proclaim that this proves that their buddy was God incarnate, and is now in heaven on the right hand of the Father. Can you imagine the reception?

They would be persecuted by the religious establishment of the time, of course. You know, like the Bible says.

Anyway, they saw visions of Jesus after his crucifixion, according to Paul. Wouldn't that help to explain things, to prove that he had ascended?

Think about it. Imagine a man walks up to you tomorrow from a remote village in Mexico, telling you that his buddy rose from the dead, that his buddy is God's Son, and that his buddy died for your sins. Do you believe him? Will you join in singing hymns about this man's buddy every Sunday?

Imagine that his friend then appeared to you after his death. Or that the man from the remote village in Mexico started to perform miracles, like Paul claimed happened in the early church. Would that possibly make you think differently?

In the book of Romans, Paul writes to the Christians in Rome. Where in the heck did they come from? Paul had not even been to Rome yet. Did a ragtag group walk into Rome from Judea, and convince them all that their friend had risen from the dead, and was worthy of worship? Had the sophisticated Romans accepted this, and then lost interest in the man's actual life, only to sit around sharing theological thoughts about the meaning of the risen Christ?

Probably most were among Romanized Jews and the God fearers, to whom a Christ who had relevance to a Gentile world would have made them a ready audience.

And remember the meaning of the word "apostle": "one who is sent forth as a messenger." In Romans, Paul was talking about how he had preached the gospel of Christ "from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum". And he was on his way to Spain, via Rome. At the end of Romans, he gives a list of people to greet and salute, and mentions some people who "are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me", suggesting that either the apostles had already been, or those who knew the apostles had been:

[1] I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
[2] That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
[3] Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
[4] Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
[5] Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
[6] Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
[7] Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
[8] Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.
[9] Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.
[10] Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.
[11] Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
[12] Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.
[13] Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
[14] Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.
[15] Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

Or did it all begin with a "risen" mythical Christ?

Merle, there is no evidence that it began with a mythical Christ, only conjecture and speculation. And ill thought out thought experiments about Martin Luther King.

Maybe Christianity began with a mythical Christ spread throughout a Hellenistic world among poeple who had no problem with mythical emanations of God.

According to Paul, he was persecuting Christians in Judea before he started preaching to Gentiles. Whatever the origin of Christianity, it appears to have been in Judea.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Merle, that's a bit unfair. You are the one continually bringing up Doherty.

I think you miss the point. If I bring up Doherty or other sources, you may certainly mention why you disagree with those sources.

The point is that, by forum rules, no other skeptic is allowed to jump on this thread. If Doherty, Vardis, or others want to respond, they need to do it elsewhere. I have written a private message to Vardis explaining this to him, since he was apparantly unaware of that.

You may certainly mention your differences with other people here, but please don't claim that the fact that they are not responding to you here means anything. They are not allowed to respond here.

If you are interested in two way conversation with Vardis, then please find a venue in which you can both participate. If you are not interested in a two-way conversation with Vardis, then please do not address posts to him here as though he is allowed to post here.

Thank you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let's recall what I actually said on the matter:

Moreover, the entire idea that a group of Jews would have absorbed and believed in a pagan philosophy in the early first century flies in the face of what we know. I have already mentioned this before. Here is part of what the Boyd and Eddy book says on the matter:
​

"Recent research suggests that the influence of Hellenism on most indigenous cultures under Greek and Roman rule was largely superficial. the pressure to conform to Hellenistic ideals often altered the veneer of indigenous cultures (e.g. architectural styles, entertainment, art, dress), but it rarely affected their traditional worldview or religious beliefs. Indeed in some instances the influence of Hellenism actually seems to have strengthened the traditions and beliefs of these indigenous cultures.

This seems to have been particularly true of ancient Jews. In fact, some evidence indicates that Jews actually became more conservative in their monotheistic religious convictions precisely because they were surrounded by pagan culture. For example, Sardis was a thoroughly Hellenized city populated primarily by non-Jews. Yet A. T. Kraabel has established that archaeology shows that the Jews in this locale grew more strongly conservative precisely because they were surrounded by pagan culture. Their disgust for the surrounding paganism apparently intensified their commitment to their monotheistic convictions.

There is some evidence that this strong resistance to Hellenism among Jews at Sardis was common elsewhere. for example, roman emperors customarily excused Jews from the civilian obligations of worshipping national deities and being involved in national pagan religious activities. Moreover they often printed special coins without the imprint of the emperor's face because Jews regarded this as making a "graven image" and it offended them. So too, throughout the emperor, Jews refused to honor gods, shrines, and cults other than their own.

Such things clearly suggest that the Jews of the first century were holding fast to their monotheistic convictons. As a number of scholars have argued, it suggests that, at least as it concerns the Jewish religion, Hellenism did not influence first-century Jews in the direction of compromise; if anything, it influenced them in the direction of deepening their convictions. Hence it is quite unlikely that first-century Jews would be inclined to accept elements of paganism or compromise their strict monotheistic standards."
​

First, may I make a request? When you quote sources other than the post you are responding to, can you please use indentation as GakuseiDon does instead of quotes? That way, when I hit the reply button, all your source material comes into my reply. When you do it using quote tags, responders need to go back through all your posts to find your quotes and copy them into their reply if relevant. Thanks.

Sure, the Jewish religious authorities resisted Greek religion. That is completely off the topic.

My point is that among the grassroots, and among many of the indivdual Jews, and among the early Christians, there was indeed strong influence from gentile sources.

Concerning the particular question of whether Greek and other pagan influences affected the very earliest Christians, historian Larry Hurtado a book on early Christianity and he sums up as follows:

Both the chronological and the demographic data make it extremely dubious to attribute the level of devotion to Jesus that characterized earliest Christianity to syncretistic influences from the pagan religious context. Devotion to Jesus appears too early, and originated among circles of the early Jesus movement that were comprised of--or certainly dominated by--Jews, and they seem no more likely than other devout monotheistic Jews of the time to appropriate pagan religious influences.
​

OK, Hurtado argues that devotion to Jesus occurs too early to say that Hellenistic influences caused Christians to quickly exalt a human Jesus to divinity. He has a point there.

But this has nothing at all to do with the mythical Jesus viewpoint, which suggests that Jesus began in the world of myth, not as a historical man who became quickly exalted to diety.

There was not a single Jewish community that inducted Greek ideas into its theology. Some may have brought bits of Greek culture into their culture, but that's entirely seperate from theological questions.

Excuse me, but can you explain why you make such dogmatic statements? The only way you could know for sure that not a single Jewish community ever inducted Greek ideas is if you knew about every single Jewish community.

There were indeed Jewish communities that had Greek influences. Take for instance, Philo of Alexandria, who harmonized Greek philosophy and Judaism. See Philo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

That is the problem with universal, dogmatic statements that make no room at all for nuance. They can be defeated with a simple trip to wikipedia.

So I've laid out my reasons for believing that the early Christians did not allow religious ideas from Greek religion (or any other pagan religion) to mingle with and reshape their own religion during the second century. Of particular importance is the distinction between Greek culture and Greek religion. Some Jewish groups did partially adapt themselves to Greek culture, but as the citations I've given above show this did not mean adpoting Greek religious ideas in whole or in part. If pagan religion had any influence on Jewish religion, in caused a reactionary movement away from paganism and towards a stricter adherence to orthodox Jewish doctrine.
The link that you posted to Wikipedia in post #278 generally confirms what Boyd and Eddy said on the matter:

Hellenistic Judaism was a movement which existed in the Jewish diaspora that sought to establish a Hebraic-Jewish religious tradition within the culture and language of Hellenism.
​

So that matches exactly what's claimed in the quote that I've posted above. It doesn't say (and I've never claimed) that there were no Jews participating in the culture of the Roman Empire at the time, but rather that Jews rejected Greek religion and stuck with a strict interpretation of Judaism.

Did you read the whole article, or grab a quick quote and run? You could have read:

The major literary product of the contact of Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint, as well as the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigraphicapocalyptic literature (such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch etc.) dating to the period. Important sources are Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Some scholars[4] consider Paul of Tarsus a Hellenist as well.
​

That list, my friend, is mostly religious books. So yes, among some Jews, there was a major Hellenistic influence, even in their religious books.

So now on to the particular questions of the supposed link between Q and the cynics. You've already acknowledged that it's not an "established fact", but merely a hypothesis supported by some scholars. Then again the question becomes, where's the evidence?

Sir, I have mentioned a number of books that show evidence for the link of Q to Greek thought. I have quoted some of the Greek sayings that have a strong agreement with statements in Q.

I try not to make dogmatic statements. So I tell you that there is strong evidence for the link of cynics to Q, instead of dogmatically demanding that I am right and all who disagree are wrong. Please do not interpret this restraint as declaring that my views are merely a hypothesis. There is indeed strong evidence for the link, and I have mentioned that several times.

Let's recall some basic facts about Q. First, Q is a hypothetical document, not a real one; as I've said, I find its existence likely but not certain. Second, if Q existed, we don't know whether it was written or in oral tradition, we don't know if it was one work or two, and we don't know exactly what it contained. If may have included a great deal more material than what's formally called 'Q material'. This makes speculation about Q particularly hazardous.

There are solid reasons for believing that Q existed. See The Existence of Q .

Certainly any 'Q community' is imaginary. There is exactly nill evidence that such a community ever existed, or that the person whose sayings are being recorded is anyone other than Jesus Himself.

By "Q commnunity" we mean that set of people that had access to Q and considered it important in their lives. Most of the Roman world appeared to know nothing about Q. But Matthew and Luke both copy extensively from it. The obvious explanation is that Matthew and Luke were part of that set of people which we refer to as the Q community which did have access to the book and considered it important. The book was apparently popular in the regions of Galilee and Syria.

The earliest level of Q appears to consist of sayings only, with no context for those sayings. Matthew and Luke use the same sayings from Q in totally different contexts. How can you explain that? The most likely explanation is that the original Q consisted of sayings with little if any context, and both Matthew and Luke threw them into the context of the Jesus story.

If the original Q was basically just a list of sayings, then we don't know if they were attributed to anybody.

What we do know about Q is that in some way some material from Q was known to both Paul and James, as it appears in their letters. Quoting from Dr. Blomberg's book:

Of all the New Testament epistles, none contains as many passages that verbally resemble the teachings of Jesus as does James. One need look no further than the first main paragraph of his letter to observe a pattern of allusions that remains constant throughout the work. ... These allusions embrace all three of Matthew's sources, Mark, Q and M, and three of the four come from the Sermon on the Mount. Both of these trends continue through the rest of the epistle.
​

As a result, many scholars have argued that James must have known the canonical Gospels, or at least Matthew. But there are good reasons for dating James very early. ... If this dating is correct, then the allusions to Jesus' teaching afford the most abundant and convincing evidence so far considered that the Gosepl traditions were known and applied very soon and very widely ub fledgling Christianity. James's form of the Jesus-tradition proves consistently closer to what scholars label the Q-form of the material unique to Matthew and Luke, rather than to Matthean or Lucan redactional distinctives of those sayings, further suggesting that James predates the written form of the Synoptics.
​

Sure there were similarities in books by early Christians. James may have even had access to Q.

But there is a huge difference between Matthew and Luke, who copy Q basically word for word, and James who uses some similar content. Can you give me an example of an obvious quote of James from the Q material? I've asked several times, and get only general comments about similar themes. I don't recall seeing one verse posted here from James that you claim comes from Q.

So there we see strong evidence that the community which produce Q and the gospels and the community which produced the epistles is one and the same.

James was very different from Paul. Paul not only does not directly quote Q, his theme is quite different from the theme of Q.

Blomberg also discusses the presense of Q material in Paul's epistles, providing further evidence for the same conclusion.

Please give me an example of material in Paul that is clearly drawn from Q. I am not looking for similarity in teaching. I am looking for actual source material of Q found in Paul.

 

[doubtingmerle]

(continued)

In addition, quotes from the Q material appear in very early writings such as the Didache, 1 Clement, and Polycarp. Since the Q material was an integral part of Christianity from the very early years, that argues further against the idea of Greek cynic influence.

How does that argue against Greek Cynic influence for Q?

And again, common sayings do not necesarily mean a common source. If you find two books that say, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch," would you conclude that one copied the other? Both could simply be using the same statement from common tradition, or from a common source.

So although the writings you refer to do have some sayings which arguably could come from Q (or Matthew or Luke) the evidence is too weak to confirm the direct link.

And again, later use of Q does nothing to prove that Paul had access to Q or other source material of the four gospels.

Furthermore recall what I already posted.

Overall I find the link to be quite weak. For one thing, cynicism was not only a philosophy of ethics, but also of physics, metaphysics, and logic. Cynic physics was strictly materialistic, holding that only physical objects exist. Cynics believed in god but their god was a principle or force acting within the material world and not a personal god, thus radically different from anything we find in any branch of ancient Jewish or Christian thought. Cynic logic was based on around a complicated tracing of the process by which perceptions were turned into actualities in the mind. No trace of any of this appears in the Q material or any other Christian writing as far as I can tell.
​

According to Wikipedia:

Many of the ascetic practices of Cynicism were undoubtedly adopted by early Christians, and Christians often employed the same rhetorical methods as the Cynics.[73] Some Cynics were actually martyred for speaking out against the authorities.[74] One Cynic, Peregrinus Proteus, lived for a time as a Christian before converting to Cynicism,[75] whereas in the 4th century, Maximus of Alexandria, although a Christian, was also called a Cynic because of his ascetic lifestyle. Christian writers would often praise Cynic poverty,[76] although they scorned Cynic shamelessness: Augustine stating that they had, "in violation of the modest instincts of men, boastfully proclaimed their unclean and shameless opinion, worthy indeed of dogs."[77] The ascetic orders of Christianity also had direct connection with the Cynics, as can be seen in the wandering mendicant monks of the early church who in outward appearance, and in many of their practices were little different from the Cynics of an earlier age.] (Cynicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
​

So now on to the supposed evidence for that link. What have we got so far? Only a few quotes from the Q material that share a superficial resemblance to a few quotes from various pagan sources, most of which aren't even cynics. (And in most cases your website couldn't even provide a specific reference for those sources.) When I pointed out this shortage of evidence, you said:

OK, we differ on this.

The site that I linked to had many more than just 4 quotes if you want to look into it further. And many have aruged that the similarity between Jesus and the Cynics is far greater than a superficial resemblance. Again, the interested lurker who wants to study this in more detail has been given information from both sides, and he is welcome to read both sides and make up his own mind.

So you can hardly expect me to take that as convincing evidence in favor of a link from the cynics to Q.

Really? I have shown you multiple books that link Greek cynicism and Q. I have shown you several quotes on the Internet. I asked people to read those sources and make up their own minds. And you now have links to wikipedia.

Are you going to continue to refuse to admit the affects of the Diaspora on early Christain thought?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You claim that Paul was influenced by Greek religion, that the "Q community" was influenced by the Greek cynics, that Mark merged this and other pagan influences with Jewish beliefs, and so forth. But you're wrong. There was no Greek influence on Jewish religion in the early first century. There was not a single Jewish community that inducted Greek ideas into its theology. Some may have brought bits of Greek culture into their culture, but that's entirely seperate from theological questions. I already brought this up earlier in the thread and you've never really responded to it.

So to summarize: no influence of the cynics on Q, no influence of Greek thought on Jewish religion anywhere else.

Are you absolutely certain you can't be wrong on the link between the Greek Cynics and Q?

Here is one more source showing the link: Please look at Burton Mack's book A Myth of Innocence. You can look up pages 67-74 on Amazon.com by searching that book for the word "cynics".

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ah, but I've already debunked that claim. Remember? Here's what I said in post #285.

The next piece of evidence you offer is that Justin Martyr and Tertullian claimed to find similarities between the two rituals. There is actually strong evidence that the passage you're referring to from Justin Martyr is not authentic.
...

So from that last sentence, it seems that Justin did not actually believe that followers of Mithras treated bread and wine as the body of their god; they had a ritual involving bread and water, but that's where the similarity ends. Indeed Justin ties this to "rites of one whi is being initiated", which is obviously a very different from the position that Paul and the gospelers had for the eucharist in Christianity.

Perhaps you were hoping that I'd forget what I'd posted earlier? If so, tough luck.

Please go back and read that link. It says there is a dispute about the word "wine" in the text. It does not say the entire passage is thought to be an interpolation.

Justin tells us that the Mithra ritual was similar to the eucharist, and he tells us elsewhere (chapter 51 at Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)) that the demons who imitated Jesus did it before the Christians did.

Christianity came first. Mark's gospel was written by 70 A.D. and Paul's epistles earlier than that; you yourself have agreed to these facts several times. The earliest evidence for the existence of the Mithras cult comes from 90 A.D. according to a link that you posted. 70 A.D. was before 90 A.D. the last time I checked. Are you going to insist that the dates which you yourself have provided earlier in this thread are wrong?

Are you assuming that the date of the first surviving artifact corresponds with the first belief in the ritual? Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the practice was built up for years before the first surviving relic?

Justin tells us that that heathen mythology was before the Christians, and that the demons deliberately imitated Christ first.

As I said, if you have any reason to believe that any of what Turkel says on his page about the supposed Mithras-Jesus link, I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise I'll trust what he says.

Interesting. The Tekton site (Turkel) tries to explain away the Mithra connection, but the closest he comes to mentioning Justin is:

Although Vermaseren suggested that this might be the formula that Justin referred to (but did not describe at all) as being part of the Mithraic "Eucharist," there is no evidence for the saying prior to this medieval text.
​

Justin was long before the medieval times, he was a famous Christian writer in the second century, and he wrote that these things were happening in the ancient cults. How can this link explain it away, without even mentioning what Justin said?

That's the problem I have with the Tekton site. It is an endless diatribe that looks impressive, but passes over the real issues. People have tried for years to debate him on the parts he skips, and he has been extremely evasive, refusing to link to those who differ with him. That is why I don't waste my time on his site.

Which specific "Greek savior myth cult" had a eucharist ritual that might have served as a basis for what both Paul and the gospelers wrote about Jesus on his last night on earth before his death?

Mithras.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You initially linked to an article by Dohery which mentioned this letter by Diognetus, and you used that as proof that both the gospels and the epistles were "marginal" for most of the second century. After I listed out every known second-century work about Christianity, you had to retreat from that position and instead posted this: "But before 180 AD, there was also a huge swath of Christianity, represented by the Gnostics and most of the Christian apologists, that emphasized the personified Logos and hidden wisdom rather than an historical Jesus." I'm still waiting for any evidence that such a "huge swath existed".
​

[/quote]


Regarding the 2nd century apologists, let's put this off until later. (Yes, I know this will be met with a huge round of jeers condemning my laziness in not responding to everything immediately, but listen folks, I do have a life, and I can't spend every minute of the day responding to everything you post here.) Let's look at the gnostics.

Justin writes, for instance, that "many of every nation" have followed Marcion, who wrote around 140 AD and was commonly condemned as a heretic by later Orthodox believers. Among other things, Marcion taught a docetic Christ who appeared to be a human, but was only an emanation of god that looked like a human. Marcion used 10 Pauline epistles and an abbreviated gospel of Luke, without the birth story. Marcion's position seems to be an easy jump from seeing Jesus as a mystic in the form of Paul, but when made aware of Luke, he allows that this mystical god appeared on earth and looked human, but was not actually a man.

A leading Gnostic, Valentinus (AD 100 - AD180), had a complex theology involving Aeons or supernatural extensions of god including the Logos (word) and Sophia (wisdom). Sophia seems to make a break into the world of the natural, and becomes the mother of the God of the Old Testament, who is different from the Father God over all.

Where does Christ fit into all of this? From Wikipedia we read:

In the fully developed Ptolemaean system we find a kindred conception, but with a slight difference. Here Christ and Sophia appear as brother and sister, with Christ representing the higher and Sophia the lower element. When this world has been born from Sophia in consequence of her sin, Nous and Aletheia, two Aeons, by command of the Father, produce two new Aeons, Christ and the Holy Ghost; these restore order in the Pleroma, and in consequence all Aeons combine their best and most wonderful qualities to produce a new Aeon (Jesus, Logos, Soter, or Christ), the "First Fruits" whom they offer to the Father. And this celestial redeemer-Aeon now enters into a marriage with the fallen Aeon; they are the "bride and bridegroom". It is boldly stated in the exposition in Hippolytus’ Philosophumena that they produce between them 70 celestial angels. (Valentinianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
​

Christ and the Holy Ghost are Aeons! How does this all fit in with the gospels? Well, it turns out Valentinus adopts another form of docetism, that the Aeon Christ somehow took control of the body of the earthly Jesus--like a bad science fiction movie--and moved that body around like a puppet. You can read about the fascinating world of Valeninus at the link. (Valentinianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Ok, now where in the world did such a fantastic world come from if the starting point is an earthly Jesus? How can a man walking on earth be one of many heavenly Aeons, a brother of Sophia (wisdom), and the Holy Spirit?

But from the mythical point of view, this makes sense. Others such as Paul could have believed in an Aeon, Christ. Valentinus had his own complex mythical world using mythical elements like Sophia, Logos, Christ and the Holy Spirit. When Valentinus becomes aware of the written gospel, he incorporates that into his system, declaring that his Aeon Christ animated the earthly Jesus.

What do you think? How did such a bizzarre view come to be?

There were many other gnostics who shared similar ideas. See Fathers of Christian Gnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[doubtingmerle]

(continued)

Let's tackle the gnostics first. We need to define gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heretical movement that branched off Christianity in the late second or early third century. The name comes from the Greek word gnossos, which means "knowledge", and this is the defining idea of gnosticism. Whereas Christianity preached an all-inclusive doctrine that Jesus had extended salvation to all people and thus tried to spread the gospel to all people, the gnostics preached an elitist message. They believed that only a small portion of the population had a "divine spark" that would allow them to reunite with God. Everyone else was metaphysically incapable of reaching salvation. Consequently, in their doctrine, Jesus had offered one message for the unsavable masses and a completely different hidden message for the special ones who could be saved.

Where are you getting this late date from? Jewish gnosticism came before Christianity ( JewishEncyclopedia.com - GNOSTICISM:) The famous Gnostics Marcion and Valentius lived in the early to middle second century. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus strongly condemns gnosticism in 180 AD.

Gnostics claimed knowledge, but it was much more than just a divine spark. They saw the material world as evil. But they saw a remote, good God, who reached out through a complex array of Aeons. Gnostic knowledge had to do with learning about these Aeons. Gnostics writings were often completely metphorical or allegorical. They would use other people's writings in metaphorical ways. Gnostic Christians thus used the same writings as the rest of the church, but they had their own hidden meanings.

Their Jesus was largely a docetic Jesus.

Where did Gnostic Christianity come from? I think folks took Gnosticism which was already widespread, and incorporated ideas of Christ and the Holy Spirit as Aeons, probably doing so even before Paul. As other Christian writings became available, they incorporated them into their Gnosticism with Gnostic meanings. Eventually the literal meanings assigned by the proto-orthodox became more popular, and Gnosticism died out.


A good source is Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities. See his chapters on Marcion and Gnostics. Ehrman emphasizes the huge diversity in second century Christianity. He never adequately explains how such diversity could have come from a common human source. Beginning with the huge diversity, however, he lays out in detail the conflicts that existed and how it all eventually got resolved into Orthodoxy. It is a fascinating book.

Now how did that play out in gnostic writings. Well there are a fair number of them, but the early gnostic gospels all follow the same plan. They take the framework of Jesus' life that's given in the canonical gospels and they add extra material to it, typically extra discussions in which Jesus gives one or more disciples some extra teaching that's supposed to remain hidden from everyone else. This is the structure for the

Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Philip, and so forth.

What about Marcion and Valentinus? Are you seriously suggesting that all Valentinus did was add some extra teachings to the gospels?

For instance: Is the following from Valentinus simply a few changes to the gospel?

After this substance had been placed outside of the Pleroma of the AEons, and its mother restored to her proper conjunction, they tell us that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit (lest any of the AEons should fall into a calamity similar to that of Sophia), for the purpose of fortifying and strengthening the Pleroma, and who at the same time completed the number of the AEons. Christ then instructed them as to the nature of their conjunction, and taught them that those who possessed a comprehension of the Unbegotten were sufficient for themselves[emphasis added] (see Preface )
​

 

[doubtingmerle]

(continued)

So the question becomes: why did the gnostics write in this way? If their goal was to overthrow everything that Jesus actually said as recorded in the original gospels and replace it with a different, elitist message, why did they keep the life story of Jesus and add new stuff to it? Why not just chuck the old life story and write a new one, or simply eliminate any life story of Jesus whatsoever? And the obvious answer is that they couldn't change the life story of Jesus because everybody already knew it. Every Christian on the planet was aware, if not of the canonical gospels, then at least of some outline of the life of Jesus. Hence the existence of the gnostic movement really serves up additional proof of how solid belief in the historical Jesus was; it can't be used to argue against the widespread knowledge of a historical Jesus.

Please go back and read Valentius and tell me if any of this applies. See Valentinus and the Valentinian Tradition .

Yes, Gnostics took works from many places and reworked them with their own metaphorical meanings, but that is not the heart of Gnosticism.

Now on to the epistle of Diognetus, which you presumably include as one work that "emphasized the personified Logos and hidden wisdom rather than an historical Jesus". (I don't see any emphasis on hidden wisdom in it, but maybe that's just me.) Your phrasing is deliberately vague there. Are you arguing that the author of this epistle didn't believe in a historical Jesus at all?

Ok, back on the epistle to Diognetus, a second century apologist who doesn't seem to be concerned about an earthly Jesus.

You will notice that the writer doesn't mention the name of Jesus one time. The word Christ appears only as a chapter title (added later?).

The emphasis is on the Logos. Its easy to look at John 1 and say the Logos equalled Jesus, but we need to take this as a product of the times. Logos religion was rampant. We saw, for instance, that Valentinus called the Logos an Aeon, that is an emanation of God (See Emanationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). He also called Sophia (wisdom), Christ, and the Holy Spirit Aeons, with no indication that the Logos and Christ were the same emanation.

Now look at Justin's condemnation of the Logos philosophy used by Valentinus. ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library . In light of all this, can you simply take the word Logos as found in Diognetus and say it must surely mean the same thing as John 1:1, when others were using the Logos to mean other things?
Did Valentius think the Aeon Sophia (wisdom) was a person? What about the Aeon Holy Ghost? What about the Aeon Christ? What about the Aeon Logos (Word)? Did Valentius think the Logos and the Christ were the same? Can you not understand that all this was myth, and that the Christ of Valentinus was myth?

If so it brings up an obvious question. (The most obvious question being: why did he say that he did believe Jesus was a man? But you've already shown your intention to evade that question with your usual "it's metaphorical" excuse.)

The writer of the letter to Diognetus simpy does not say that Jesus of Nazareth was a man. He does not even mention the word Jesus one time.
He says that God sent, "the Designer and Maker of the universe himself, by whom he created the heavens and confined the sea within its own bounds". Remember that "the Designer and Maker of the universe" does not necessarily mean the supreme God, for many believed in a Demiurge ( Demiurge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) who designed the universe who was different from the supreme God.

There are also frequent references to "his son" and " The Logos" but as both were terms that were used for emanations of God, we cannot necessarily equate these with Jesus of Nazareth.

The epistle says, "Now, did he send him, as a human mind might assume, to rule by tyranny, fear, and terror? 4Far from it! He sent him out of kindness and gentleness, like a king sending his son who is himself a king. He sent him as God; he sent him as man to men".The emphasis here is how he was sent, in kindness, as a king sending a son, as a man to man. Does the phrase "like a king sending his son" mean a literal earthly king, or can you understand that "king" is just a metaphore for God? If you hear that a man bonded to another "as brother to brother", would you take that as proof that those two men were brothers? Could "as man to men" be metaphore also? So how does "as man to men" override all of this epistle's silence about Jesus?
If this is the writer's way of saying he believes in the Logos of John 1:1, instead of all the other ideas floating around about the Logos, he was very cryptic in his expression.

The obvious question is that if this person didn't believe in a historical Jesus, then why did he build his letter out of quotes and paraphrases from the gospels and the epistles of Paul, all sources that did believe in a historical Jesus? How could he simultaneously reject the entirety of what those sources said while relying entirely on those sources?

Uh, excuse me, but what quotes and paraphrases? The side notes in this epistle points to only one passage, II Cor. 6:4-10 as an obvious pattern to what it says here. (And as you know, I don't regard II Cor. as being a book that teaches an earthly Jesus.) The rest of the commentator's notes are about comparing passages with verses in the Bible. I think it is a huge stretch to say this is built on quotes of the gospels and epistles.

That brings us directly to another obvious question. This person is laying out the basics of his understanding of Christianity. He certainly knew that it was standard among Christians to believe in the historical Jesus. So if he didn't believe in a historical Jesus, why didn't he say directly that the belief in a historical Jesus was incorrect. As it is, the most obvious explanation is that since both he and the recipient knew that all Christians believed in a historical Jesus he could simply mention the fact a couple times and move on. But if he didn't believe in a historical Jesus, wouldn't you expect him to say so clearly and directly?

You could say the same thing about Valentinus's Logos. The writer of the epistle to Diognetus was surely aware of the uses of Logos as an Aeon of God. If he uses the word Logos, and did not mean to imply a mythical Aeon of God, then why wasn't he clear that he was talking about something else?

For that matter, why didn't anybody else. We're on page 32 of this thread, which has been going for almost two months, and you still haven't named a single human being from ancient times who actually said that Jesus was not a human being. What's up with that?

Neither have we mentioned a single person who said that Satan was not a Human being or that the Holy Spirit was not a Human being. And nobody has yet mentioned that Bugs Bunny was not a human being.

That's the way mythology works. It's rare for the writer of myth to say specifically that he is not writing about a human being.

And if a writer had said that Jesus was myth, do you really think the scribes in the Middle Ages would have copied that down to us? Those scribes copied only what the church wanted.

But as I and 2 John indicated, there were people within the church that were specifically saying that Jesus was not come in the flesh, that is, that he was never a human being on earth (the surviving edition of those books was strongly against those mythical Jesus believers).

 

[AlexBP]

You will notice that the writer doesn't mention the name of Jesus one time. The word Christ appears only as a chapter title (added later?).
... The writer of the letter to Diognetus simpy does not say that Jesus of Nazareth was a man. He does not even mention the word Jesus one time.

But Earl Doherty and yourself place a lot of your hopes on the fact that the Epistle of Diognetus and certain other second-century apologists don't use the name "Jesus" or "Christ". However, this proves nothing, as has already been pointed out in one of the articles that I linked to before, which you never responded to. Some writers who plainly did believe in a historical Jesus did not use the name "Jesus Christ" in their writings. Tertullian's work Ad Nationes is one example. So are some of the late works of Justin the Martyr. For that matter, I can name later apologetics works that say very little about the life of Jesus Christ by name or otherwise. Chesterton's Orthodoxy says virtually nothing about any event in the life of Jesus, and so does Van Til's Christian Apologetics. Those were both written in the twentieth century. Would you argue that from those two work we're seeing a "conspiracy of silence" concerning the name of Jesus and the events of his life which indicates that those authors know nothing about Jesus as a historical person? If not, then you acknowledge that the mere absense of the name "Jesus Christ" or any specifics about particular events in his life does not constitute evidence that the author of a work did not believe in a historical Jesus.

There are also frequent references to "his son" and " The Logos" but as both were terms that were used for emanations of God,

Who exactly used the term "the Son" to describe an emanation from God?

 

[AlexBP]

What I am saying is, when Paul quotes scripture, that scripture generally meant something completely different in the original from what Paul uses it to mean. Don't believe me? OK, you could start anywhere in Paul, and read until you come to an Old Testament quote. Then look up the original, and see if the original means in context what Paul uses it to mean. It won't be long until you find many instances of what I am talking about.

I've already responded to this line of argument and frankly you've just ignored what I have to say. Let me try one more time. The way in which Paul and other writers highly relevant to this thread uses the Old Testament is known as Midrash, and it is a highly complicated topic. To the tyro of biblical studies it may seem that Paul's applications are random, but they are not. Midrash interpretations of Old Testament passages were not carte blanche to interpret any passage as meaning anything. Again, it might seem that way to those who are uniformed, but it's not the case. To understand how first-century Jews used Old Testament passages--and how they didn't--you have to study the topic. I've recommended Dr. Blomberg's book, which has an excellent chapter on the topic. However, it's clear that trying to get you to read that or almost anything else is a waste of time. Here's part of what Dr. Blomberg says:

When midrash refers to methods of interpreting Scripture, one or more of the ancient lists of rules handed down by the rabbis is usually in mind. The slightly older contemporary of Jesus, Hillel, is credited with formulating seven main rules, but by the middle of the second century these had been expanded into thirty-two.
​

So there we see clearly that midrash did not give the writer free reign to interpret any passage as meaning anything he wanted. Rather, it was a specific method with specific rules. Now how did users of midrash use the Old Testament. As I said before, they say in the Old Testament a series of events, patterns, and types in Israel's past which, to their minds, told what was going to happen in Israel's present and future. Nowhere and at no time did midrash users take events from earlier in Israel's history and use them as statements about abstract comments or purely spiritual lives taking place in heaven. None of the rules concerning midrash would permit that. For someone to take the story of the Exodus and use it as a pattern for the baby Jesus and His family returning home from Egypt is within the bounds of midrash. So, for example, in Romans 10:18 Paul usages a passage from Psalm 19 to describe the message that Jesus Christ was spreading. The original text in Psalm 19 has a very different context, and to the ignorant it might seem that Paul is taking it and changing the meaning arbitrarily. Thus it might seem that Paul might be discussing something metaphorical or spiritual. But to those who are informed about midrash, it's immediately clear that Paul would only say such a thing if he believed Christ to be a human being and an Israelite. (And Paul says specifically in Romans that Christ was both.)

The point is quite obvious if you look at how Old Testament references were used by Jews around the same time. I have previously linked to this article by Christopher Price and you haven't responded to it.

In his book and on his website Doherty often dismisses seeming references to a historical Jesus because of their relationship to the Hebrew Bible. Because he finds connections between how Jesus is described and Hebrew Bible passages, Doherty determines that they are not describing an earthly figure. In his article on Hebrews, Doherty dismisses the reference that Jesus was "was descended from Judah" because "[t]he verb anatellein, to spring (by birth), is also the language of scripture. It is used in several messianic passages, such as Ezekiel 29:21 (“a horn shall spring forth”), and Zechariah 6:12." Doherty also claims that Gal. 4:4 ("born of a woman") is derived from Isaiah 7:14 ("a young woman shall be with child and give birth"). Similarly, Doherty finds significance in Jesus being "wounded" (Isaiah 53:5) and "pierced" (Psalm 119:120). Most significantly, Doherty claims that Zech. 12:10, is "the source for the 'fact' that Jesus had been crucified." (Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, page 81). ... He seems to think that when one finds a New Testament passage referring to some event, especially about Jesus, that relates to an Hebrew Bible passage, it should be seen as creativity, not history.

Such a methodology, however, is untenable. Of course the value of the Hebrew Bible to Jews and Christians at that time cannot be understated. For both groups it was the only scripture they had. Because of its centrality to Jewish and Christian thought, it would be foolish to deny it influenced their writings. However, it is going too far to assert that these writers only used it to invent stories. Far from it. Jews and Christians were almost obsessed in their belief that God had acted and would continue to act in human history. The stories in the Hebrew Bible were not just stories, they were types showing how God might act in the future. They included prophecies of future events. As a result of this, and their belief in a God very active in human affairs, Jews and Christians saw recent historical events in terms of the Hebrew Bible. This perspective caused them to describe recent events in Hebrew Bible terminology and pursuant to Hebrew Bible themes.

​

Price goes on to look at specific examples. Among the most relevant is that Paul used Old Testament language and imagery to describe himself. Now are you going to argue that Paul thought Paul was a purely spiritual being who never lived on earth or interacted with his peers? I don't think you are. Price also brings in examples from Josephus, Pliny, the Old Testament itself, the church fathers, the Essenes, and others, all of which back up the point. So for you to insist that you can dismiss all of Paul's references to Jesus as a human by claiming that they were midrash gets you nowhere. Indeed, if you took the time to learn what midrash was, you would see that a proper understanding of the term works strongly against your argument rather than for it when it comes to interpreting Paul.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What I am saying is, when Paul quotes scripture, that scripture generally meant something completely different in the original from what Paul uses it to mean. Don't believe me? OK, you could start anywhere in Paul, and read until you come to an Old Testament quote. Then look up the original, and see if the original means in context what Paul uses it to mean. It won't be long until you find many instances of what I am talking about.

I've already responded to this line of argument and frankly you've just ignored what I have to say. Let me try one more time. The way in which Paul and other writers highly relevant to this thread uses the Old Testament is known as Midrash, and it is a highly complicated topic. To the tyro of biblical studies it may seem that Paul's applications are random, but they are not. Midrash interpretations of Old Testament passages were not carte blanche to interpret any passage as meaning anything. Again, it might seem that way to those who are uniformed, but it's not the case.

You quoted back my suggested exercise, but you did not tell us if you actually did it. Did you do what I suggested?

You may not have time for this exercise, and that is fine, but any interested lurker who cares to can do it. Just pick up any of the epistles attributed to Paul, and start reading until you come to an OT quote. Look at what Paul says it means, then go back to the OT, and look what it meant in the original context. It won't take you long to find samples of blatant misrepresentation of what the OT was saying.

Once you, the lurker, has done that exercise, then come back and read AlexBP's post, and let us know if AlexBP adequately explains all of Paul's blatant misquoting of scripture.

While Paul was finding one Jesus in scripture, many others were finding something very different. Who was right?

Those who have a sense of humor--and only those who have a sense of humor--could read A Chassidic Rabbi Makes a Startling Discovery and tell us if Paul's use of Midrash is any more honest than the tongue in cheek Midrash of this Rabbi.

 

[Johnnz]

I suggest you go to www.RegentAudio.com and download for a charge the set of lectures by Rikk Watts on the topic of the NT quotes from the Old. you will get a far better examination of the material than any of us can achieve here.

John
N[FONT=&quot]Z
[/FONT]

 

[doubtingmerle]

I suggest you go to www.RegentAudio.com and download for a charge the set of lectures by Rikk Watts on the topic of the NT quotes from the Old. you will get a far better examination of the material than any of us can achieve here.

John
N[FONT=&quot]Z[/FONT]

Thanks, but there are at least a dozen posts addressed to me that I haven't had time to respond to, and many links that people have demanded that I read that I have not had time to respond to, so I really don't have time to listen to an audio.

Have you done the exercise I suggested above to see if Paul is telling the truth when he quotes the OT? What have you found?

Does Watts agree that the NT does not correctly represent what the OT is saying when it quotes the OT? If so, can you give me a quick synopsis of how he justifies it?

And if Paul is honest when he quotes the OT, why do we need to buy a recording to say that?