Did Jesus Exist?

GakuseiDon

Newbie
Feb 17, 2011
48
0
✟15,159.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Sure, a Q leader is a likely candidate for the historical leader of a Q community.
On the last page you wrote: "The "Jesus" of the synoptics is an invention of Mark based perhaps on a leader of a Q community in Galilee" and "we can asume that the Jesus of Mark was thought by many within the Q community to be a reference to the founder of their community."

It seems then that there is your historical Jesus. :wave: The only question for you is to show what was invented and what was not. And how you know. Still, we have dragged you half way there. I'll concentrate on Paul now, to drag you the rest of the way.

I doubt if the Q leader is the candidate for Paul's Jesus, for Paul seems to be unfamiliar with Q.
Paul is a product of the time, writing in the style of that time. YOU expect Paul to write for us. But you have still to show that this expectation is warranted. I've given examples to you here and in my review to show that this expectation is not warranted, and it is anachronistic for you to expect this.

Surely you would have to grant the principle that it is possible that people in ancient times wrote differently to what we would expect of us today? And once you grant the possibility, wouldn't the next step be to investigate it? Have you done this? Has Doherty?

Read my review on the example of Tertullian's Ad nationes, and tell me why Tertullian never refers to "Jesus" or "Christ", why he 'hides' Christ's ministry on earth, why he talks about 'the name' being preached in the time of Augustus, then Tiberius and finally Nero, without even hinting about a Jesus being on earth in that time. Why did Tertullian write like that in your opinion, merle?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
1 Cor 7
[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
[11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Compare with Mark 10:
[2] And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him.
...
[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Uh, this is a reference to Mark?

(See correction below)

Look what Paul is saying: Wives don't leave your husbands.

Look what Jesus says in Mark: Husbands don't put away your wives.

That is not even the same concept. It's two completely different sayings on a similar topic. How can this be a clear reference to Q? (You will notice that I persistently asked for a clear reference to Q, not similar teaching.)

Paul's statement about women not leaving their husbands was almost universal in Judaism. Women were treated as property. They were not allowed to leave their husbands.

But the concept of Mark is somewhat new, that men ought not practice the right granted by Moses to divorce a wife if "she finds no favor in his eyes" (Deut 24:1).

So Paul was echoing what he got from Jehovah from scripture, and Jesus in Mark was teaching something new.

Next:

1 Cor 9
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

That refers to the apostles preaching the gospels, and possibly related to Mark 6:
[7] And he called [unto him] the twelve [apostles], and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
[8] And commanded them that they should take nothing for [their] journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in [their] purse:
I discussed this above. "The Lord" is again Jehovah, whom Paul quotes in verse 9 as giving a command not to muzzle oxen that tread out the grain. Paul says this isn't talking about feeding oxen, but about feeding preachers of the gospel. But if you look at what "The Lord" said in Deuteronomy, you will find it truly is talking about feeding oxen. Again, Paul goes to scripture, interprets it to suit him, and tells us he got it from "the Lord".

And keep in mind Galatians, where Paul claims he persecuted the churches of Christ in Judea, and ended up teaching the same faith as those he persecuted. Then again, Paul doesn't tell us, so maybe it was just a cheese fondue recipe or something. :)
Yes, see post #243 where I speak of the Jerusalem apostles, and how Paul followed up on what they taught. The Q Jesus appears to be very different than the object of worship of the Jerusalem apostles.



Note: I need to correct that. I see now that verse 11 does command the husband not to put away his wife. Knowing the way Paul loosely interprets scripture, it wouldn't be at all unusual for Paul to say the scripture also teaches this. At any rate, Paul is not making it at all clear that "the Lord" means anything other than Jehovah here.

So yes there is a similar teaching here, but there is no clear reference that this is coming from Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
On the last page you wrote: "The "Jesus" of the synoptics is an invention of Mark based perhaps on a leader of a Q community in Galilee" and "we can asume that the Jesus of Mark was thought by many within the Q community to be a reference to the founder of their community."

It seems then that there is your historical Jesus. :wave: The only question for you is to show what was invented and what was not. And how you know. Still, we have dragged you half way there. I'll concentrate on Paul now, to drag you the rest of the way.

Uh yes, of course Jesus existed--hundreds of them!

For Jesus was a common name back then. Josephus refers to several Jesus's.

And yes, there were many teachers and leaders back then. There might have even been a leader named Jesus. There might have been a leader of the Q community, and his name might have been Jesus. All of this is obvious.

But did the Jerusalem apostles and Paul follow an earthly Jesus? Did they follow the man who founded the Q community? I don't know, but I think the best explanation is that they did not.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
There are at least four instances in which Paul clearly quotes Jesus. They are Romans 14:14, 1 cor 7:10, 1 Cor 9:14, and 1 Cor 11:23-5. All of these verses are quotes, by Paul, of Jesus, and I have posted that list at least half a dozen times. Your response is that Paul isn't quoting Jesus but rather his direct revelations from the Father, but since for months I and others have explained ad nauseum why we know this to be untrue. (See posts 328, 363, 386, 387, and several dozen others.

Oh please sir, where have you quoted those 4 references and told us they were clear quotes of Jesus? I have searched through ever page since page 30 and haven't seen it mentioned once before this post. You know I have been asking you to quote verses for me to support this arugment. Now you come back and finally give some verses, and you tell us you have done it six times? You have? I checked again the 4 posts you mentioned. I could not find it.

Please, if you have said it and I missed it, show me where. But please don't go telling people you said this a half dozen times if you haven't said it once before this post.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Read my review on the example of Tertullian's Ad nationes, and tell me why Tertullian never refers to "Jesus" or "Christ", why he 'hides' Christ's ministry on earth, why he talks about 'the name' being preached in the time of Augustus, then Tiberius and finally Nero, without even hinting about a Jesus being on earth in that time. Why did Tertullian write like that in your opinion, merle?

I read through your review. As you know, Doherty has thoroughly dealt with your claim in the thread addresed to you, and in which you participated, Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - Page 3 - FRDB. See posts 54 and 55.

Tertullian is not hiding his Jesus. He firmly admits to the founder of his faith.

This is far different from the second century writers, who write in an era when many were speaking of the Logos as an Aeon of God, and who speak of the Logos without mentioning Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Actually we know a great deal about Jesus and about the Jerusalem Apostles because we're lucky enough to have four books about them, namely the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Nothing casts any doubt on their reliability, so we can trust them.
Nothing casts doubt on the reliability of the gospels? What about all the contradictions? What about the fact that they weren't written until 40 years later? What about the fact that they make fantastic claims that were not verified by others? What about the fact that the other writers simply copy Mark when something is in Mark, and thus are not providing independent confirmation? What about the fact that we don't even know who the writers were, and if they are reliable?

The "Q teacher" was Jesus. We know this because our two sources for Q material, the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew, both name him so scores of times. Matthew and Luke are not about two separate characters who both happen to be named Jesus Christ. They are each about one character named Jesus Christ. It is likey, though as I'm said far from certain, that they got their material from multiple sources, but obviously it's all meant to describe Jesus, since it says so very often.
Well, yes, but the name "Jesus" was used by Mark, and that Matthew and Luke basically copy Mark with a few changes if they repeat a story found in Mark. So yes, of course they keep the name Jesus.

We don't know if the Q document made any mention of a name. Since Luke and Matthew throw the Q teaching in at different contexts, its likely that Q gave little if any narrative context of its own and mentioned no name of a leader.

Furthermore, if as a thought exercise we tried to reconstruct the life of Jesus based only on the Q material, we could find an enormous amount. We know exactly when and where he lived, because the Q material contains interaction between him and John the Baptist, both while John the Baptist was preaching and after John was arrested, via messengers. So that means that whoever wrote Q not only knew about the life of Jesus but where and when it took place. Q includes mentions of Bethsaida and other towns in the region, so whoever wrote Q knew not just that Jesus ministered in Palestine but exactly where within Galilee it happened. We know that John baptized Jesus. We know that Jesus had a group of disciples, who did in fact walk on earth with Jesus. We know that Jesus clashed repeatedly with the Pharisees. We know that he referred to his own death on a cross. We know that he was Jewish, but repeatedly crossed the lines and interacted with gentiles and with the outsiders in Jewish society. And we know an enormous amount about his teaching, which matches up very well with everything else we know from other sources.
John the Baptist is a historical figure that represented a potential rival sect, so his involvement may have been added to show he approved of the group. The angry indictment of the Jews may mean that the founder struggled with the Jews, or it could mean that the people turned against the Jews when they rejected the Q community's Cynic-style peaceful teachings. The indictment of certain cities only means they were felt as a threat, not that the Q founder had been there. The disciples in Q are little more than a rhetorical device to setup the sayings.

As for the charge that Q does not contain things like Jesus' baptism, transfiguration, trial, and crucifixion, it's important to remember that we define the Q material as what is not in Mark. Since these events are in Mark, they are not part of the Q material. But they might have been in the Q document!
So unless you've found a copy of Q somewhere, you have no basis whatsoever for the claim that Q does not contain a eucharist meal, or that it does not contain "exalted claims".

We cannot know for sure what was in Q. That's why it would be a fantastic find if we someday found Q.

The passages we can discern that probably came from Q make none of the exalted claims about Jesus that are found in books like John.
In fact, there is ample evidence that Q did contain a scene of Jesus being tried, crucified, resurrected, and reappearing, if you look at the similarities between Matthew And Luke that are not found in Mark in those scenes.
Uh, Q is not based on similarities. It is based on finding nearly identical sayings that obviously come from a common source. Can you give me an example of something that might come from Q and tells us about the Passion week? (And no, I am not looking for endless quotes, arguments, links, apologetics, and references. Just a verse or 2 that you think could have come from Q that supports your view.)

So with all that established, we now have two possibilities before us:

1. Jesus ministered in Galilee c. 30-33 AD, two different followers produced Mark and Q, and later Matthew and Luke both chose to write compilations including those two sources and others.

2. There were two different people named Jesus ministering in Galilee, particularly in Bethsaida and several other towns of the same name. Both were baptized by John the Baptist. Both gathered disciples. Both clashed with the pharisees. Both ministered to both Jews and Gentiles. Both taught in parables, involving common subjects such as land ownership, paying wages to workers, and comparing tax collectors to the righteous. Both predicted, while alive, that they would be crucified. And both were tried, crucified, and then rose from the dead. The life of one Jesus was recorded in Mark while the life of the other Jesus was recorded in Q. At some later date, Matthew and Luke both seperately came up with the highly unusual idea of combining the life stories of these two people seperately into single narratives.

Uh no, we have at least 3 possibilities. The 2 you mention above, and the scenario I proposed in post #243.
 
Upvote 0

GakuseiDon

Newbie
Feb 17, 2011
48
0
✟15,159.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
GDon said:
Read my review on the example of Tertullian's Ad nationes, and tell me why Tertullian never refers to "Jesus" or "Christ", why he 'hides' Christ's ministry on earth, why he talks about 'the name' being preached in the time of Augustus, then Tiberius and finally Nero, without even hinting about a Jesus being on earth in that time. Why did Tertullian write like that in your opinion, merle?
I read through your review. As you know, Doherty has thoroughly dealt with your claim in the thread addresed to you, and in which you participated, Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - Page 3 - FRDB. See posts 54 and 55.

Tertullian is not hiding his Jesus. He firmly admits to the founder of his faith.
Excellent! Then you should have no problem telling me why Tertullian doesn't use the names "Jesus" and "Christ" in Ad nationes. Quote Doherty if you like, though better if you use your own words, in case, you know, Doherty dodged the question.

And you can tell me why Tertullian writes this:
"This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor."
Where is the historical Jesus in there, merle? Why the vague reference to "the name" taking its rise under Augustus, "the name" being taught under Tiberius and "the name" being condemned under Nero? Wouldn't you expect Tertullian to have made some mention that God Himself had incarnated during that time?

You say Doherty has "thoroughly dealt" with my points, so it should be easy for you to explain. Unless, of course, Doherty dodged the question.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GakuseiDon

Newbie
Feb 17, 2011
48
0
✟15,159.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
But if you look at what "The Lord" said in Deuteronomy, you will find it truly is talking about feeding oxen. Again, Paul goes to scripture, interprets it to suit him, and tells us he got it from "the Lord".

Note: I need to correct that. I see now that verse 11 does command the husband not to put away his wife. Knowing the way Paul loosely interprets scripture, it wouldn't be at all unusual for Paul to say the scripture also teaches this. At any rate, Paul is not making it at all clear that "the Lord" means anything other than Jehovah here.

So yes there is a similar teaching here, but there is no clear reference that this is coming from Jesus.
Merle, where in the Bible does it clearly support "the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel"? Whom did God say that to in the Bible, merle? Or is this just going to be another question you will skip over?

Speaking of which:

Paul is a product of the time, writing in the style of that time. YOU expect Paul to write for us. But you have still to show that this expectation is warranted.

Surely you would have to grant the principle that it is possible that people in ancient times wrote differently to what we would expect of us today? And once you grant the possibility, wouldn't the next step be to investigate it? Have you done this? Has Doherty?
 
Upvote 0

GakuseiDon

Newbie
Feb 17, 2011
48
0
✟15,159.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
And yes, there were many teachers and leaders back then. There might have even been a leader named Jesus. There might have been a leader of the Q community, and his name might have been Jesus. All of this is obvious.
Excellent. So we have Mark who might well have been writing about the leader of the Q community, saying many of the things in the Gospels, and performing healing miracles in the Gospels, etc. And also incorporating the Jerusalem apostles that Paul apparently knew in his Gospel (though you believe those apostles weren't disciples of an earthly Jesus, of course).

But did the Jerusalem apostles and Paul follow an earthly Jesus? Did they follow the man who founded the Q community? I don't know, but I think the best explanation is that they did not.
That isn't the best explanation. Here is what I regard is the best explanation:

Jesus was the leader of the Q community, as you've suggested might be the case. He was a Galilean, said many of the things in the Gospel, did some of the things in the Gospels, and gained a following as a prophet and holy man within his lifetime. These followers continued on after Jesus died as the Ebionites and Nazarenes. They didn't think Jesus was virgin-born.

Jesus went to Jerusalem, where he was crucified after running afoul of the religious establishment of his day. The body went missing, and people had visions of a risen Jesus, which confirmed to them that Jesus was the Son of God. This became the Jerusalem group.

Paul then came along and had a revelation that Jesus' death had significance to the Gentiles, and became the apostle to the Gentiles.

As far as I can see, the data we have fits perfectly with that scenario. You counter that Paul doesn't write like we would expect him to write, but without even trying to address whether that is a warranted assumption or not. I've note examples where other writers don't write like we would expect them to write, so have concluded that your assumption is not warranted.

And with your explanation you have to posit the existence of a Christianity not know in the historical record, interpret phrases like "in the flesh" that have no precedent either before or after Paul, and invoke a metaphysical framework of "fleshly sublunar realms" that goes against what we know of the times.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Merle, where in the Bible does it clearly support "the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel"? Whom did God say that to in the Bible, merle? Or is this just going to be another question you will skip over?
No, I didn't skip this. I already answered twice.

Once more, here is the passage in question (I Cor 9). Paul is defending his right to ask people to pay him to preach:

7Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?
8I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things?
9For it is written in the Law of Moses, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING " God is not concerned about oxen, is He?
10Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.
11If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
12If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.
13Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? 14So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

He quotes a verse in Deuteronomy about feeding oxen and says it is not talking about feeding oxen, but about feeding preachers. But he is wrong. That verse is about feeding oxen, yes? In typical Pauline fashion, he takes the verse out of context, and tells us it means what he wants it to mean. So yes, he is telling us that the Lord commanded this in scripture.


Paul is a product of the time, writing in the style of that time. YOU expect Paul to write for us. But you have still to show that this expectation is warranted.
I said that? Really? Where did I ever say I expected Paul to write for us?
Surely you would have to grant the principle that it is possible that people in ancient times wrote differently to what we would expect of us today? And once you grant the possibility, wouldn't the next step be to investigate it? Have you done this? Has Doherty?
Certainly.

Doherty goes to great length to show why it would be normal for the first century Christians, in light of their circumstances and background, to have written about the Incarnated Son of God if he had existed on earth.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Excellent. So we have Mark who might well have been writing about the leader of the Q community, saying many of the things in the Gospels, and performing healing miracles in the Gospels, etc.
Uh, I see no reason to think that Mark was writing about the leader of the Q community any more than the writer of The Night Before Christmas was writing about the real Saint Nicholas. Mark seems to have been writing fiction, which may have been partially based on a leader of the Q community.

And also incorporating the Jerusalem apostles that Paul apparently knew in his Gospel (though you believe those apostles weren't disciples of an earthly Jesus, of course).
Yes. And it's not merely apparent that Paul knew the Jerusalem apostles. He talks about them a lot. BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: cephas, peter, james, john


That isn't the best explanation. Here is what I regard is the best explanation:

Jesus was the leader of the Q community, as you've suggested might be the case. He was a Galilean, said many of the things in the Gospel, did some of the things in the Gospels, and gained a following as a prophet and holy man within his lifetime. These followers continued on after Jesus died as the Ebionites and Nazarenes. They didn't think Jesus was virgin-born.

And the Ebionites rejected Paul, the divinity of Christ, the atoning death, and physical resurection. It appears that they merely followed a version of Matthew as their book.

If Jesus had inspired others to a highly exalted view of him, how can the Ebionites have come from the same earthly man that inspired Paul?

Jesus went to Jerusalem, where he was crucified after running afoul of the religious establishment of his day. The body went missing, and people had visions of a risen Jesus, which confirmed to them that Jesus was the Son of God. This became the Jerusalem group.
Then why does the original book of Mark end at 16:8, with no reference to a sightings of Jesus? If that had really happened, even in a vision, wouldn't Mark want to say so? And why do we have so many contradictions in the accounts of the resurrection, if they are based on historical fact? And how would a resurrection confirm a man as the Son of God? Was Lazarus also the Son of God? And what about the many that Matthew says rose from the dead? Were they all the Son of God? If being resurrected puts one in the godhead, are we dealing, not with a trinity, but a polynity?

Paul then came along and had a revelation that Jesus' death had significance to the Gentiles, and became the apostle to the Gentiles.
And yet other disciples beat him to Rome?

And with your explanation you have to posit the existence of a Christianity not know in the historical record, interpret phrases like "in the flesh" that have no precedent either before or after Paul, and invoke a metaphysical framework of "fleshly sublunar realms" that goes against what we know of the times.
Paul wrote from the perspective of Middle Platonism, which saw a transcendent God who revealed himself through gods and deamons. Many wrote of emanations or Aeons of God that reached out to the world from this transcendent god. Valentinus spoke of over 30 AEons, including Sophia, Logos, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. All of these AEons reached out from the realm of the transcendent god toward the realm of flesh where people lived. Why could it not be that those who believed in an AEon Christ believed that this Aeon actually reached into the realm of flesh?
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
doubtingmerle said:
I have tried to acknowledge your reponses, but there are dozens of your posts that I have not responded to, and never will be able to respond to, because I don't have the time to respond to everything posted here. And when I do repond, you respond with twice as much as what I write, and that only puts me further behind.
I believe that we had some good, honest discussion at the beginning of this thread. Unfortunately it's starting to degenerate, and if you're just going to ignore my main arguments then I think it's time for me to bow out. It was fun while it lasted.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I believe that we had some good, honest discussion at the beginning of this thread. Unfortunately it's starting to degenerate, and if you're just going to ignore my main arguments then I think it's time for me to bow out. It was fun while it lasted.

Yes, we have had some good discussion, thanks.

I think I explained to you multiple times that I simply could not keep up with the pace you wanted to go. I have several dozen posts of yours saved off that I wanted to respond to, as well as multiple links. It would have been physically impossible for me to rspond to all of that within the limited time I had available.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Excellent! Then you should have no problem telling me why Tertullian doesn't use the names "Jesus" and "Christ" in Ad nationes. Quote Doherty if you like, though better if you use your own words, in case, you know, Doherty dodged the question.
I never even heard of Ad nationes until a few weeks ago, and now I need to be an expert on it?

I started reading it, and don't see how Tertuallian is evidence that people didn't talk about Jesus although they believed him. Tertullian is answering a particular argument, that Christians have a bad reputation. He responded by pointing out that one should not judge all Christians just because some Christians misbehaved. If that was the issue he was addressing, why would you expect him to discuss the earthly life of Jesus in order to make that point?

And he does mention that Christians are called Christians because of their founder:
But the sect, you say, is punished in the name of its founder. Now in the first place it is, no doubt a fair and usual custom that a sect should be marked out by the name of its founder, since philosophers are called Pythagoreans and Platonists after their masters; in the same way physicians are called after Erasistratus, and grammarians after Aristarchus. If, therefore, a sect has a bad character because its founder was bad, it is punished as the traditional bearer of a bad name. But this would be indulging in a rash assumption.

The first step was to find out what the founder was, that his sect might be understood, instead of hindering inquiry into the founder's character from the sect. But in our case, by being necessarily ignorant of the sect, through your ignorance of its founder, or else by not taking a fair survey of the founder, because you make no inquiry into his sect, you fasten merely on the name, just as if you vilified in it both sect and founder, whom you know nothing of whatever
So it is difficult to see how anybody can read that and not believe he was talking about an earthly Jesus.

Tertullian, writing around 200 AD, is writing in an age where most all Christians believed in an earthly Jesus. We do not find such clear references to an earthly Jesus in the writings of many earlier Christians.
And you can tell me why Tertullian writes this:
"This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor."
Where is the historical Jesus in there, merle?
I don't know how Tertullian put together this rather disjointed book. Possibly he is copying somebody else here.

But this is a good question for you: If Tertullian is right here--and we don't know for sure that he is--how is it that the name Christian arises in the reign of Augustus, who died in 14 AD, before Jesus began his public ministry? Could it be that the name comes from people in the reign of Augustus who, like the later Valentinus, looked to an AEon Christ and called themselves Christ-ians before your Jesus was known? If they were following "Christ" before your Jesus began his public ministry, does that mean they were following something other than your earthly Jesus? Is it possible that Tertullian was copying some source that said people were called Christians in the time of Augustus, without realizing that quote refers to a Christ before a historical Jesus would have lived? I don't know.

At any rate, Tertullian clearly refers to his belief in the founder of his faith, so that really is not a question.
Why the vague reference to "the name" taking its rise under Augustus, "the name" being taught under Tiberius and "the name" being condemned under Nero? Wouldn't you expect Tertullian to have made some mention that God Himself had incarnated during that time?
He is referring to the term "Christian" and those who condemned the word itself. He points out that the name comes from the founder, and has been around for a long time. That seems appropriate to me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Since the start of the thread you've been arguing that Paul believed Jesus Christ to be a heavenly being who never lived in the physical world. You have vigorously rejected any claim that Paul believed Jesus to live in the physical world. So suddenly you're admitting that in Paul's view Jesus existed and did things "in the physical world instead of the realm of the spirit". That's a sizable step in the right direction for you at least.
Obviously you missed much of this thread, so I will bring you up to speed. There has been a huge debate about the mailing address of the gods, and I have consistently said, "I don't know". That has been repeated so many times on this thread, I am not sure how you missed it.

We don't know where Paul thought Jesus died, but somehow Paul sees it as moving beyond the realm of spirit into the realm of flesh. Where exactly was that? I don't know. Was it up on top of the firmament? Was it on a remote Island? Was it on the moon? Was it in an alternate universe? I don't know.

My point has always been that Paul doesn't equate it with the death of a human being who's life was witnessed by his peers.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
How commonly? Exactly how many people do you know of who believe that 1 Cor 2:8 refers to "demonic princes" rather than the face-value understanding of "the rulers of this age"? Please give me names and also tell me what their credentials are.

That's how I viewed that verse, even when I was a Christian:

1 Corinthians 2:8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;

Who do you think it refers to Herod and Pilate? How can those two men prove that "none of the princes of this world" knew it?

Doherty mentions these sources that agree it is speaking of demonic spirits who killed Jesus:

Scholars who balk at this interpretation of Paul's words and declare that he simply means the earthly powers which the Gospels specify (e.g., Anchor Bible, p.164), are bucking even ancient opinion. Ignatius uses the term archon in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1). Origen regarded the archonton of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the gnostic Marcion.

Modern scholars like C. K. Barrett (First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.72), Paula Fredriksen (From Jesus to Christ, p.56), and Jean Hering (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.16-17, a brief but penetrating analysis), have felt constrained to agree. Delling in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (I, p.489) notes that the spirit rulers are portrayed by Paul as "treating the Lord of glory as prey in ignorance of the divine plan for salvation." They operated in the spiritual realm, which S. Salmond (The Expositor's Greek Testament, Ephesians, p.284) describes as "supra-terrestrial but sub-celestial regions." Paul Ellingworth, A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians, p.46, states: "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here."

S. G. F. Brandon (History, Time and Deity, p.167) unflinchingly declares that although Paul's statement "may seem on cursory reading to refer to the Crucifixion as an historical event. . .the expression 'rulers of this age' does not mean the Roman and Jewish authorities. Instead, it denotes the daemonic powers who . . . were believed to inhabit the planets (the celestial spheres) and control the destinies of men. . . . Paul attributes the Crucifixion not to Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leaders, but to these planetary powers."

However, Brandon (like everyone else) fails to address the question of how Paul could have spoken in such terms if he had the tradition of Jesus' recent death in Judea before his eyes, providing not so much as a hint of qualification to this supernatural picture. It will not do to suggest that since earthly rulers are considered to be controlled by heavenly ones, the latter are seen as operating "through" the former. Paul would not likely have presented things in this way without an explanation. And once we get to the Gospel picture which first makes a clear reference to earthly rulers in the death of Jesus, any heavenly dimension which supposedly lies behind those rulers completely disappears. (see Jesus Project Demise)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You're obviously very keen on this argument that since Proverbs 8 personifies wisdom, therefore any statement about Jesus being a human being can instead be interpreted as a personification of the Logos, and therefore it doesn't count as evidence that the writer in question believed Jesus to be human.

That is odd, for I have not made that argument even once, so how can I be said to be keen on it?

The point is that the ancients often personified atributes of god and these personifications sometimes grew to the point that they were considered to be gods. For instance, Sophia (wisdom) is personified in some expressions in Valentinian writings:

Next to Sophia stands a male redeeming divinity. In the true Valentinian system, the Christ is the son of the fallen Sophia, who is thus conceived as an individual. Sophia conceives a passion for the First Father himself, or rather, under pretext of love she seeks to draw near to the unattainable Bythos, the Unknowable, and to comprehend his greatness. She brings forth, through her longing for that higher being, an Aeon who is higher and purer than herself, and at once rises into the celestial worlds. Christ has pity on the abortive substance born of Sophia and gives it essence and form, whereupon Sophia tries to rise again to the Father, but in vain. In the enigmatic figure of Christ we again find hidden the original conception of the Primal Man, who sinks down into matter but rises again.

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.

(Valentinianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

So what begins as personified wisdom in Proverbs, becomes a sister of Christ in later writings. And it is sometimes difficult to determine if a writer is speaking of a personified attribute, an expression of God, another god, simple allegory, or some combination of meanings.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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.

False dichotomy. "Christ" is a pre-existent part of the Godhead, appearing throughout our history. "Jesus" is a man. The 2 are in no way at odds with one another.

The problem is that, to Gnostics such as Valentinus, The Logos and Christ represented two different AEons of God. So you cannot assume that when people back then mentioned the Logos, they meant the same thing as Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Recall that at the start of the thread, you backed up a great many claims by saying "many scholars think ...." or "most scholars agree..." or "it is established that ..." After a few weeks, I began asking you to name exactly who these scholars were that you were refering to. My inquiries were unsuccessful, insofar as that (with one exception) you never tried to answer them.

Sir, it has been a huge thread, and I could not possibly respond to everything said. I believe I have responded every time I was asked for a source. If I missed one, please let me know what you are looking for.
 
Upvote 0