Did Jesus Exist?

[Justsomedude]

.

 

[Justsomedude]

.

 

[Justsomedude]

.

 

[Justsomedude]

.

 

[ElijahW]

Whoa! We are here to examine Christianity on this forum, yes? Are you finding the alternative more interesting? Why so many questions about the alternative?

I’m new here so I’m not sure the protocol but I would be a little disappointed if you weren’t able to discuss your understanding of how Christianity started because you don’t consider yourself a Christian currently.

No, I am not combining them. Greek philosophy influenced Q. Greek mystery cults probably influenced Paul.

What from Q do you think is an influence from Greek philosophy that is relevant to the discussion? What influence from mystery cults did Paul have and where are you getting the information (text wise) about what these mystery cults believed? (Not a link to Doherty)

What argument against pagan myth was made famous by Plato? Are you saying that nobody believed in Greek myth after Plato?

That gods were constant and ideas (forms) are real would be the big ones for this discussion. I’m sure people still believed in taking myth/poems literally after Plato but it wasn’t going to be popular with people educated or familiar with the philosophy of the time. I would think today it is much more common to have an anthropomorphic understanding of god because of how less common it is to be studied in philosophy these days.

A few quotes about the “ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry”

Soc. And do you really believe that the gods, fought with one another, and had dire quarrels, battles, and the like, as the poets say, and as you may see represented in the works of great artists? The temples are full of them; and notably the robe of Athene, which is carried up to the Acropolis at the great Panathenaea, is embroidered with them. Are all these tales of the gods true, Euthyphro?

Yes, Adeimantus, they are stories not to be repeated in our State; the young man should not be told that in committing the worst of crimes he is far from doing anything outrageous; and that even if he chastises his father when does wrong, in whatever manner, he will only be following the example of the first and greatest among the gods.
I entirely agree with you, he said; in my opinion those stories are quite unfit to be repeated.

At Athens there are tales preserved in writing which the virtue of your state, as I am informed, refuses to admit. They speak of the Gods in prose as well as verse, and the oldest of them tell of the origin of the heavens and of the world, and not far from the beginning of their story they proceed to narrate the birth of the Gods, and how after they were born they behaved to one another. Whether these stories have in other ways a good or a bad influence, I should not like to be severe upon them, because they are ancient; but, looking at them with reference to the duties of children to their parents, I cannot praise them, or think that they are useful, or at all true.

And another from Justin Martyr:

And if you decline citing the poets, because you say it is allowable for them to frame myths, and to relate in a mythical way many things about the gods which are far from true,

It wasn't so much the Greek poetry as the Greek mystery cults. See http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp13A.htm .

The Greek mystery cults didn’t take the poetry literally to form their understanding of Gods? I guess I can get what understanding they had when you provide a text that explains what they believed. (Not Doherty’s site. If you think he has a text on there supporting it then pass a link on of the actual text.)

Yes, many beliefs, many groups, many combinations of beliefs in the Diaspora.

Yes, this where you need to explain the groups and the beliefs that are relevant to the formation of the church we see today. I’m trying to get an understanding of what you think was going on to form Christianity.

Different people had different views of wisdom, but many seemed to personify wisdom as does the writer of Proverbs:

So you get your understanding of God and spiritual elements from taking poetry literally? How do you support literalism?

The proto-orthodox combined these.

Who? When? Where? What text best illustrates this? Mark?

See http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp13A.htm .

I’m still going to need to know which savior god you are trying to compare him to.

You are responding to a paragraph which mentioned several names. Who all are you including in the pronoun "they"?
Paul preached a salavation by faith in the blood of Jesus through a baptismal ritual. Paul never mentions a kingdom of heaven.

As I said, we don't know what the Peter, James and John that Paul referred to believed.

I meant both of the groups which you gave answers for. You can guess about what Peter and them believed. You are trying to lay out your case for what happened so we can see where the preponderance of evidence is at. Are they preaching kingdom stuff or inclusion of the gentiles by faith… or what?

I don’t understand what you think Paul is offering or trying to accomplish. Here is a couple of quotes about the kingdom from him though. “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Romans 14:17 “I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” 1 Cor15:50

[/quote]Actually Paul stresses that this is the gospel of God. I don't understand your question.[/quote] Why is he trying to include gentiles by faith in Jesus instead of faith in God? Why not include them by faith in their God? Why is this secondary figure necessary?

Paul taught salvation through a baptismal ritual which showed faith in the death of Jesus. For instance, Romans 6 (emphasis added):

Unfortunately I’m not able to see past my understanding of the text, to see your understanding. What do you think being “baptized into his death “means and how does that help save anyone in anyway?

Paul doesn't say where he thought Jesus died.

I thought we are assuming he died in heaven for sake of your theory? I’m trying to figure out if you think Paul was talking about a spiritual messiah in heaven or spiritual demigod that dies in heaven… or combining them into a spiritual messiah who is also a demigod that dies in heaven.

Q taught the kingdom of God, yes. Others may have taught it earlier.

Can we speculate on when it started? Also could we clarify between if it’s a kingdom of god which manifests on earth or a kingdom of god as in a magical place in another realm where people live and die?

I don't think Q had anything to do with a messiah claimant. Do you think Q was written from that perspective? Why?

I can’t say I believe in Q. A possibility, sure. But if it is real then it would have included things like this from Luke:

7:18-23 The disciples of John told him all these things. John calling to him two of his disciples, sent them to the Lord, saying, 'Are you he who is to come, or shall we look or another?" When the men had come to him, they said, John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, Are you he who is to come or shall we look for another?' In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. He answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard; the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them, and blessed is he who takes no offense at me."

11:23 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

12:8-9 I tell you, every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

The part with JtB preparing and waiting on the messiah is still there and him establishing himself as the sole authority is as well.

I don't know Mark's motives. I think most likely he was sincerely trying to write a novel to give hope, just like parents tell kids about Santa Claus.

How does he think this is going to give hope?

I don't know if Mark had a souce with such a claim.

Feel free to guess at what you don’t know. You are just trying to lay out a situation where what you suggest is possible.

 

[ElijahW]

[FONT=&quot]

(continued)Isaiah 53. Early Christian writers commonly quoted it as proof of a dying savior.

Do you think that they are depicting a spiritual entity who dies in Isaiah or the messiah will? Or some combination?

Santa's mailbox at the post office was full of requests for food and clothes this year. I heard several of them read on the evening news. It was amazing--and heartbreaking--to hear these letters of people pleading with Santa for new shoes, for instance, since they didn't have any.
People do not stop writing stories of hope, just because times are rough.

what is the hope being offered with the story of Jesus in Mark?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

One tradition says Paul was released and went to Spain. Another tradition says he was martyred in Rome. Which one is right?
We don't know. Traditions about what happened to the apostles are so contrradictory and poorly supported, we simply don't know what happened to them.

So you don’t know where or how they died and you don’t want to speculate in order to explain your theory?

Would you also like to know Mark's shoe size?
Are these serious questions, or an attempt to waste my time?
My answer: I don't know, probably somewhere between 100 and 1,000,000.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] And Mark did not necesarily mean his book to apply to a particular man of the past.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Yes the questions are serious. I’m trying to build a picture of what you think happened. So far it’s mostly a bunch of I don’t knows. What makes you think he was not applying or getting this story from a particular man in the past?

For the same reason that, once some people came to believe that Elvis was still alive, storys of Elvis sightings became popular.

If Jesus was thought to be alive, everybody who believed it would have wanted to talk about what happened next.

Elvis was a historical figure who people couldn’t accept had died. Compounded with people dressing up like him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Why do people expect him to be alive? Just because Mark was written and everyone somehow thought it was historical? How did that happen?

Do you not agree that the storys of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke contradict?

So? Do you think they both came up with virgin birth origins separate from one another, regardless of whatever differences you have in mind?

Apparently a number of people liked the books of Matthew and Luke. For they were copied many times, and survived 2000 years.

So you think they were read some place like a library or a person’s house and that the person liked the story so copied it down themselves? Or was their some kind of publishing effort to push the story out to the public?

Something like the wisdom figure in Proverbs, yes.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is why I said earlier that you had a ‘Clash of the Titans’ understanding of what is going on back then. It’s not meant to be an insul,t just a good example of what happens when you take art literally in regard to gods. You don’t have a rational understanding of scripture or what is being talked about back then. Cartoons are playing in your mind when reading this stuff.

Have you not noticed that John 1-17 is very different from the synoptics? The signs gospel is thought to be the core of John 1-17.
The signs gospel is all about Jesus as a revealer. (It never really tells us what Jesus actually revealed.) Probably this was not speaking about a specific person from recent history.

So not about being signs of him being the messiah but signs of him being what again? A teacher of Gnosis? Is that what you mean by revealer?

The gospels try to exalt their Jesus as the messiah. We don't know how much the movement existed before the books were written. We don't know if the writers thought the Jesus they wrote of was historical, or if they thought they were writing a novel.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well we are assuming for discussion’s sake that Mark was knowingly writing fiction to give hope correct? What do you assume Luke and Matthew thought they were writing? And the question was do you see all of the gospels as trying to establish salvation by faith in him as Christ or do you see something else in the stories as they are presented today?

The Gospel of Thomas presents a Jesus that is little more than a phrase--"Jesus said..."--at the start of each verse. This book's Jesus could have been no more real then the Wisdom figure who spoke in proverbs.

So a group just grabbed some Gnostic sayings and attributed it to Jesus? Do you think this happened before or after the Gospels creation and popularity it produced for the name Jesus? Or do you see it as one of the texts that was used to influence the movement before the gospels were written?

Gnostism had many varieties. Some probably saw their revealing Jesus as the messiah.

Why do they need a messiah for? Isn’t salvation found in knowledge? The knowledge they find central may vary but the need for a messiah would need to be explained.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

The Orthodox sacrificed themselves?

Typo. Was trying to speak of Jesus and his apostles.

And whether Jesus was a historical person.

No, the nature of the historical person. If his body was material or not.

Then perhaps you should read Paul.

Romans and Galations, for instance.

Awesome suggestion! [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But seriously I’m going to need some frame of reference for how you are interpreting those texts if you want me to think that your interpretation is valid and not something you are just making up from taking art literally.

Huh?

I was asking if you are a literalist which you have already shown, so the question is already answered. Just need to support your literalism now.

Paul stresses that his gospel of Jesus comes from scripture. He never says anything about it coming from a man on earth.

He died according to scripture. His gospel comes from a vision from Jesus after his persecution of the church lead to the death of Stephen. If Paul was going around saying some guy told me this and I believed him, that wouldn’t have had the same impact as I was persecuting and had a vision that said he was wrong.

Doherty summarizes at http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp12One.htm [/quote]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] I didn’t see anything (other than expectations not being met) that says Paul thought that Jesus never existed at a point in history. Do you think him making this point was edited out because it seems like he would try to be clear about that point?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Paul doesn't support a church hierarchy. That's why the proto-orthodox wrote I Tim., 2 Tim., and Titus to make it look like he did.

Then the question goes back to why are they using Paul’s texts? Why not someone else or just make-up their own?

When combined with the gospels and Acts, Paul's books could be interpreted as talking about an earthly Jesus. But when taken at face value, Paul seems to be saying something else.

Taken at face value he is including the gentiles into the promise made to the Jews in the OT. I don’t know what you think is going on because I don’t know how you are interpreting these texts. Because as of now I am still uninformed about these mystery cults that you think influenced Paul.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Taken out of context and imagining whatever you want is going to give you the results you wish..

Which texts could they have used besides the ones they picked? Do you have something in mind?

No, not my theory. Are you saying that no one was able to write proficiently enough back then in those groups to use and they weren’t capable of just making it up? Isn’t there some kind of grand conspiracy and cover-up going on that shouldn’t force them (whoever that is) to have to use Paul’s letters?

Paul stresses salvation through the blood to a much greater degree than the gospels do. If you are going to stress the blood atonement, then you need Paul and the writer of Hebrews.

So you can’t understand the sacrifice in the Gospels without Paul’s letters? How does blood atonement cause salvation? And we are speaking of the blood of a deity in heaven? Because they bleed and die up there just like people?

Not at all. Two groups can develop widely different views from the same starting point of Jewish scripure, messianic hope, and the Diaspora culture mix.

They can have the same influence but I would like you to explain how it’s possible to mix salvation of a messiah sacrificing his life on earth and a god dying in heaven.

Justin's conversion experience seems to be based on that Logos, not on the crucifixion of a man in history.

So was mine. Which makes sense since we weren’t born early enough for it to be based on his sacrifice.

If one already believes that personified wisdom exists as a heavenly being, then it is a simple step further to believe that personified wisdom entered a physical man in the past, or that this personified wisdom made an appearance on earth in the form of a man. That appears to be the origin of docetism.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] How do you think docetism originated?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yes if they took artistic representation of Wisdom literally then they could have personified it like you do. More likely and more rationally is that they understood people as personifying the spirit wisdom like a wise person would. Here is Justin with some explanation of how wise men are connected to Christ through reason.[/FONT]

But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible — let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably.

And docetism comes from a preconceived prejudice against matter and not allowing Jesus to be considered matter because of that bias. Paul has the same thing going on with the bodies being changed. I think it was very common thinking back then.[FONT=&quot]

Gnosticism covered a wide range of belief. Many gnostics believed in a docetic Jesus.

Possible, because they see matter as being corrupt.

Huh? I just told you what they rewrote. They "rewrote history". That's an expression meaning they wrote history to conform with the way they wanted it to be written.

Eusebius in the fourth century is a good example.

That’s a little vague. What kind of conspiracy are we talking about, at what scale? Are you a like that one poster who goes on forever about Constantine making Christianity up with Eusebius? Or is the conspiracy theory you are suggesting less grand?

The church father, Origin, writes around 250 AD that martyrdom had been rare. See [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4front97.html[/FONT][/FONT] .
Roman Martyrdom reached its peak at the end of the third century when Orthodox Christians refused to participate in worship of other gods. This angered the Romans, who thought these rituals were necessary to promote the common good.

[FONT=&quot]It doesn’t matter about rarity. It matters who started the idea in the group that the others are following. You don’t even have a guess on if Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome?[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[doubtingmerle]

Two can play your game, ElijahW.

I’m new here

Why are you new? Why didn't you come here before? Will you come here again? Do you know all the rules? How new are you? When did you start coming? Will you come here again? Do you like it here? Where have you been? What is your religious history? What do you believe? Why? Are other beliefs wrong? How do you know they are wrong? How do you know you are right? What is the probability that you are wrong?

So I’m not sure the protocol

Should we teach you the protocol? Do you expect people to answer 200 questions everytime you write to them? Will you gladly answer 200 questions everytime somebody writes to you? Why ask so many questions?

but I would be a little disappointed if you weren’t able to discuss your understanding of how Christianity started

I did that several posts back.

That gods were constant and ideas (forms) are real would be the big ones for this discussion.

Did everybody believe that gods were constant? Do you believe that gods were constant? Was God constant? If God was constant how did he create the world? Does God ever change his mind? Does God ever do things? Does Jesus ever do things? What does Jesus do? ((Please list everything) Is Jesus God? Does that make 2 gods? How many gods are there? Where did God come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? What did I have for dinnner? Who will win March Madness? Why do you say that? What are the names of all the players in March Madness? Where do they live? How many lefthanded redheads live in Texas?

Yes, this where you need to explain the groups and the beliefs that are relevant to the formation of the church we see today.

What groups do you think were common? How many churches were there? Who was the pastor of each church? How many people were in each church? Where were the churches located? How fast did they grow? What did they do in the early church? Is it OK to kiss on a first date? What is your middle name? How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck wood chuck wood?

Who?

He's on first.

When?

Second base?

Where?

Shortstop, I think.

What text best illustrates this?

What text illustrates what?

Mark?

Set? Go!

I meant both of the groups which you gave answers for.

Both of which groups? Why?

You can guess about what Peter and them believed.

You can guess Peter's shoe size. You can guess what Peter liked to eat. You can guess his wife's name. You can guess what the ancient cavemen believed.

Why is he trying to include gentiles by faith in Jesus instead of faith in God?

Did Paul think Jesus and God were both God? Was he a polytheist? Why mention Jesus instead of God? If Jesus is God, why not just say God instead of saying Jesus? Are they the same? Are they different manifestations of the same? What does the trinity mean? Where did the word come from? Could there really be four members of the trinity? What about predestiantion? What do you think about tongues?

Why not include them by faith in their God?

Why include them? Why include who?

Why is this secondary figure necessary?

What secondary figure? Was there a third figure? How many figures? How do you figure? Did you figure it out yet? What is a figure 8? Why do they call it a figure 8? Who was the first one to call it a figure 8? What are the rules of Crazy 8? Why do they call it Crazy 8?

Unfortunately I’m not able to see past my understanding of the text,

Is that a problem for you? Shouldn't everybody go beyond there own understanding? What is your understanding? Is your's right? What other understandings are there?Who's on first? What's his name?

Can we speculate on when it started?

Can you speculate on when it started?

A possibility, sure.

What is a possiblity? What are the odds? How did you calculate those odds? What formula describes the probabilities?

Feel free to guess at what you don’t know.

Thanks, I'll do that.

Etc., etc., etc.

OK, do you get the point? Are you interested in overwhelming with hundreds of irrelevant questions, or are you interested in actually discussing something?

 

[ElijahW]

OK, do you get the point? Are you interested in overwhelming with hundreds of irrelevant questions, or are you interested in actually discussing something?

Yeah I get the point. You don't like to answer questions about your theory because you haven't thought it out yourself. Now imagine the lawyer trying to present a case that argues he doesn't have to actually have to layout what happened and starts responding to questions with who's on first jokes instead of trying to actually answer the questions. Why would anyone think the preponderance of evidence is with the side of the lawyer who can't even articulate what he think happened? Why even consider it when it's obvious you don't really have a coherent theory of what happened or why?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Paul does say that a Jesus on earth was a descendant of David. At that time, in that place, saying "A was born of the seed of B" meant that A was descendant of B. It meant physical descent. It did not mean metaphorcial similarity between A and B. As already mentioned, the Jews placed tremendous emphasis on knowing each individual's ancestry because so much of the Jewish law and scripture related to that. The idea that Paul would idly toss around phrases like "of the seed of David" to mean nothing in particular but only something metaphorical is therefore wrong.

Please show me one place where anybody says A was the seed of B, and the writer was clearly refering to a human "A" who was actually the Son of God with no human father.

And if Jesus was the Son of God, then he was not literally the Son of Joseph or the Son of David, was he? So now are you going to switch to a figurative interpretation, that he was figuratively the Son of David?

Besides, how do you know Joseph was the son of David? Matthew and Luke give contradictory geneaolgies of Joseph. Obviously at least one is wrong. If folks were using wrong genealogies, how do you know genealogies were that important?

Twice already I've asked whether you're able to name any instance in ancient Jewish history where any Jew used that phrase to mean anything other than literal ancestry. You haven't answered, from which I assume the answer is 'no'.

I have probably answered hundreds of questions on this thread. Unfortunately, I have limited time to spend here.

I don't know any instances in which any Jew used that phrase figuratively (other than Paul). But then I haven't read everything written by Jews, nor am I an expert on such things.

But I do know places where people are referred to as the sons of Abraham that were not the literal descendents. For instance:

Galatians 3:7
Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
​

So yes, they sometimes used ancestry figuratively.

Further, Paul does not say that he got the gospel from the scriptures. He says, quoting from the NKJV:

called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh
​

So that fits with the explanation that Paul believed the messiah was promised through the scriptures and that than arrived in the person of Jesus Christ. It does not fit with the theory that Paul believed this gospel to be only material found in the scriptures and not involve a physical descendant of David.

Paul says he was, "separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord". (Note that I removed the comma in that quote. After all, the original didn't have a comma there.)

That sure looks like he is saying that he got his gospel from the [Old Testament] scriptures. Nowhere does he say he got this gospel from Jesus or from his disciples.

We can bury your theory further by looking at the definition of the Greek word that becomes "gospel" in English translations. Everyone knows that the word in question means "good news", but not everyone has absorbed that the "news" in question is exactly what we mean by news today, like what we read in the papers. So the "gospel" is the good reports about events. It is not and cannot be simply a good interpretation of a scriptural passage. By using the word "gospel", Paul made clear that he was talking about recent events. Further, it's likely that Paul modeled the first verses of Romans 1 on a birth announcement for the son of a Roman Emperor. Hence he was basically saying, "the Romans make a big deal about the arrival of an emperor's son, but I've got news of an arrival that's even better".

Oh, please. If you only had the writings of Paul, would you argue that Paul claims a gospel, and gospel means good news, so therefore it was recent, so therefore it was on earth, so therefore God himself was recently incarnate, and so therefore the earthly Jesus was known by Paul's peers (even though Pual never mentions any of that)? Can you see how some would call this a stretch?

Why are we searching for trivial literal interpretations of poetic phrases in order to find somebody who mentions an earthly Jesus before 70 AD?

To understand how Old Testament scripture is used in the New Testament, you have to understand the concept of a Midrash, which was very common in Jewish culture at the time. Defining Midrash exactly is like nailing jelly to the wall, but generally a Midrash is some form of commentary, teaching, or explanation for something employing the Old Testament scriptures. Paul's usages of Old Testament quotes are within the tradition of Midrash. There was nothing unusual about taking a passage refering to one thing and using it to explicate some current event. The instances in Paul's epistles that you're thinking of are examples of that.

Is it honest for Paul to take things out of context, and pretend they mean something they don't? How does naming it "Midrash" solve the moral issue?

But discussing ancestry is not something that Paul would play around with in that manner because, as already mentioned, the Jews attached such huge importance to it.

Why not? Some of Paul's followers thought ancestry was hogwash!

1 Timothy 1:4
nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

​

Notice that they are not merely treating genealogies as something ordinary. They say they are worthless. That is very different from the view you suggest about genealogies, isn't it?

With people saying such things about genealogies, how do you know that Paul's Diaspora audience in Rome thought genealogies were so important?
　
And if genealogies were so important, why do the writers of the gospels disagree on the genealogy of Joseph? It sure looks like at least one made up a genealogy. If one of those genealogies was real, why didn't both use the real one? So can you even prove that Joseph was literally the seed of David?

Further, as already mentioned, the only way that Paul would justify such a radical shift in theology away from traditional Jewish beliefs would be if he believed the Messiah had arrived and ushered in the Messianic Age. The Messiah was a physical person and a descendant of David. The Messiah could not be anything else. Paul believed Jesus to be the Messiah. Ergo Paul believed Jesus to be a physical person and a descendant of David.

...or Paul could have been living in the Diaspora, and been combining Greek and Jewish thought, perhaps.

Because Paul didn't refer to James as "brother". He referred to James as "the brother of Jesus". Repeatedly. He never referred to anyone else as "the brother of Jesus". Nor did anyone else ever refer to anyone else as "the brother of Jesus".

Oh, please where does Paul call James "the brother of Jesus" as you repeatedly declare in quotes? Paul calls him the "Lord's brother", and that can have many meanings. If Paul meant to clearly call him a physical brother (half-brother?, step-brother?) of Jesus, he could have used your terminology. But he doesn't do that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, we would not, at least not if we're familiar with the facts about Jewish beliefs in the first century. The Pharisees were the dominant Jewish group at the time, both in number and authority. Waging an outright verbal war against them would be very rare for any participant in mainstream Judaism. There were, of course, splinter groups such as the Sadducees and the Essenes, but obviously neither Paul and James nor any of the gospelers had any ties to them. The gospels show that Jesus Christ regularly participated in the tri-annual appearances in Jerusalem, Rabbinical readings and teachings, and other instances of the mainstream culture. Paul was raised a Pharisee and regularly preached in the synagogues of the cities he visited. That both of them would separately launch attacks on the Pharisees, to the point of using the same words in many cases, is unlikely in the extreme.

Seriously? The Pharisees represented Judaism, a rival religion to the Christians. Why be surprised that all Christians were opposed to their rivals?

Furthermore, it is simply not true that the themes listed were common in Jewish thought. The predominant understanding at the time was that the wealthy were the one's closest to God's favor. This understanding is demonstrated in Mark 10, where Jesus tells the disciples that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God", and they respond "Who then can be saved?" For Jesus to declare that the poor are more in God's favor than the rich is a complete inversion of the social structure in contemporary Judaism, and utterly off-the-wall for those familiar with Jewish thought at the time. Why would both Paul and the gospelers come up with the same very strange idea if they were unrelated to each other?

As I said, Greek cynic philosphy seems to have influenced early Christians. Greek cynics emphasized the common people and a simple life.

Forgiveness is another theme where both Paul and the gospelers tell the same story, but it's a story radically different from what mainstream Judaism would provide at the time. In Mark, Jesus has the ability to forgive sins, and demonstrates it many times. The most famous is in Mark 2, in the story of the paralytic:

So Mark clearly knew that forgiveness of sins came through Jesus. Similarly Paul knew that forgiveness of sins came through Jesus and hammered that theme on countless occasions. Now what would any member of mainstream Judaism have thought about forgiveness? They would have thought that the only way to achieve forgiveness of sins was through the rituals of animal sacrifice, purification, isolation, and so forth as described at great length in the Books of Moses and at even greater length in the Talmud. To contemporary Jews, that was the only route to forgiveness. The idea that Paul and Mark would both come up with the idea of forgiveness through Jesus Christ separately is off the wall.

Yes, most Christians looked to a savior, and forgiveness from sin. So?

Or let's look at divorce. What would contemporary Jews believe about divorce? They'd believe that it's fully permissable for a husband to divorce his wife, since that's codified in Deuteronomy and again the Talmud. Yet in Mark Jesus says this:

Likewise Paul says that "a wife must not divorce her husband" and "a husband must not divorce her wife". [1 Cor 7] Paul also makes it very clear and specific that this command was taught by Jesus Christ. So both Paul and Mark were familiar with the teachings of Jesus Christ about divorce that overturned the earlier teachings from the Law of Moses. How could this be true if they didn't know each other and neither knew a historical Jesus?

Once again, a common aspect of the Christian culture. This does not mean one book used the other as a source.

The gospels differ on divorce. One says you can divorce in the case of adultery. One says you can never divorce. Which is correct?

Let's look at the centrality of love. Mark 12 has the following passage:
Paul was obviously familiar with this saying of Jesus, since he mentions part of it in Galatians 5. While the quote "love your neighbor as yourself" comes from Leviticus, nothing in contemporary Judaism would lead anyone to label that as "the greatest commandment". How could Mark and Paul have both gotten the same idea if they didn't get it from Jesus?

Uh, wan't everybody for love? Who is against love? What is so unusual about all early Christians seeing love as the greatest commandment?

And besides, the gospels say the law is summed up in two commandments (love God and your neighbor). Paul says it is summed up in one (love neighbor). In your opinion, which of those views of the law is correct? Is it fulfilled in one command or in two?

On the avoidance of hypocricy, Paul's take on the subject in Romans 2 and other places contains undeniable echos of how Jesus treated the topic. While they were obviously not unique in disliking hypocricy, nonetheless there's no way that Paul and Mark could write such similar material on the topic if they didn't get it from Jesus.

Again, common culture.

Did you really expect somebody would be for hypocrisy? Surprise, surprise, they are both against it.

There's a large amount of material in common between Paul and Mark's gospel alone that is not shared by contemporary Judaism and that flatly contradicts what contemporary Judaism strongly believed in.

Sure. Christianity is a product of the Diaspora. Strict Judaism stuck with Judaism only.

You've asked for specific examples of such similarities and now you have a very small fraction of them.

No I did not ask for similarities. If two books come from a similar culture, we can expect similarities.

I said, "you would either need to find one book saying it was quoting the other, or have a substantial quote that it is unlikely that both were simply using the same common saying. " Any evidence of that?

And what about the difference? How can Pauls stress salvation by faith, wheras Matthew teach salvation by deeds? How can Paul stress a baptismal ritual in which one dies with Christ, as opposed to the baptism of repentance of the gospels? How can the gospels talk of Jesus and his "disciples" being selected by Jesus, wheras Paul speaks of "apostles" selected by God? etc.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I’m new here so I’m not sure the protocol but I would be a little disappointed if you weren’t able to discuss your understanding of how Christianity started because you don’t consider yourself a Christian currently.

I wrote an extensive post on how I think Christianity started. What is your alternative? Please post an alternative that does a better job of explaining the available data.

What from Q do you think is an influence from Greek philosophy that is relevant to the discussion?

For instance:

Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20/Matthew 5:3)
Only the person who has despised wealth is worthy of God. (Seneca EM XVIII 13)

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves. (Matthew 10:9-10).
Wearing only ever one shirt is better than needing two; and wearing just a cloak with no shirt at all is better still. Going bare-foot, if you can, is better than wearing sandals. (Musonius XIX)

Salute no man by the way. (Luke 10:4)
Keep to yourself, quite unsociable, exchanging greetings with no one, neither friend nor stranger. (Lucian)

Seek, and ye shall find (Luke 11:9/Matthew 7:7)
Seek and you will find. (Epictetus)

​

And so on. See (Common Paine: Was Jesus a Cynic? )

What influence from mystery cults did Paul have and where are you getting the information (text wise) about what these mystery cults believed? (Not a link to Doherty)

Mystery cults were secret cults that did not write much. Even if they had written, it is doubtful their works would have survived to today. However, scholars have studied them and found indicators as to what they believed and practiced. I am no expert on Greek culture, but I have told you where you can ask your questions of one who knows far more about this. Why don't you ask there? If your questioning is serious, I would think you would want to talk to those that know more about it.

That gods were constant and ideas (forms) are real would be the big ones for this discussion.

What do you mean by constant? Are you saying that gods were never thought to do anything? If so, that certainly doesn't apply to the Jews, who thought that their God and other heavenly beings did many things.

As I discussed earlier on this thread, there are verses in the Bible describing beings doing things in heaven including a war in heaven and sprinkling of blood in heaven.

And I think many Greeks also thought their gods did many things.

I’m sure people still believed in taking myth/poems literally after Plato but it wasn’t going to be popular with people educated or familiar with the philosophy of the time. I would think today it is much more common to have an anthropomorphic understanding of god because of how less common it is to be studied in philosophy these days.

OK, so there were some people who believed that gods did acts of salvation? Those would have been Paul's audience.

So you get your understanding of God and spiritual elements from taking poetry literally? How do you support literalism?

I don't know if God exists, but I certainly don't look to understand him by taking poetry literally

You can guess about what Peter and them believed.

I already answered this. See post 204.

I don’t understand what you think Paul is offering or trying to accomplish. Here is a couple of quotes about the kingdom from him though. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Romans 14:17 "I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Cor15:50

Neither of these seem to describe a kingdom on earth. The first describes a realm without food or drink, a realm of the Spirit, the second descibes a realm without flesh and blood, probably heaven.

Why is he trying to include gentiles by faith in Jesus instead of faith in God? Why not include them by faith in their God? Why is this secondary figure necessary?

Why is Jesus necesary? Good question!

Since this is the Christian Forum, and Christians believe Jesus is necessary, perhaps they should answer your question.

Unfortunately I’m not able to see past my understanding of the text, to see your understanding. What do you think being "baptized into his death "means and how does that help save anyone in anyway?

Like I said, it was probably a ritual practice identifying one with the death of Christ. This ritual aspect of baptism is very different from the gospel accounts.

What do you think Romans 6 teaches about baptism?

I thought we are assuming he died in heaven for sake of your theory?

I said I don't know where Paul thought he died. I am saying Paul doesn't seem to be indicating a man who recently died on earth. Most likely it was thought to be somewhere in the heavens, or was completely figurative with no location selected.

And no, we are not doing this for the sake of "my theory". We are looking at what is actually in the epistles, to see what they really taught.

I’m trying to figure out if you think Paul was talking about a spiritual messiah in heaven or spiritual demigod that dies in heaven… or combining them into a spiritual messiah who is also a demigod that dies in heaven.

Something like that.

How does he think this is going to give hope?

Mark's gospel? I have answered this several times.Why must I keep repeating myself?

Just as people tell stories of Santa to give them hope, or other legends develop to lead people into a realm of fantasy and hope, Mark could have written for the same purpose.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I’m trying to build a picture of what you think happened. So far it’s mostly a bunch of I don’t knows.

Read post #204.

What have you given us as an alternative? Nothing! If you don't like post #204, why don't you give us an alternative that explains the beginning of Christianity better? Why hide behind irrelevant questions instead of actually taking a stand for something? Do you even have a position of your own on Jesus?

And yes there are things I don't know. If we don't know, it is better to say, "I don't know" then to make something up and pretend we know.

Why do people expect him to be alive? Just because Mark was written and everyone somehow thought it was historical?

People today read the gospels and think they prove that Jesus rose from the dead. If those documents convince sophisticated modern people, why couldn't they have convinced people back then with far less access to accumulated scholarly knowledge?

Do you think they both came up with virgin birth origins separate from one another, regardless of whatever differences you have in mind?

The virgin birth was probably part of the common heritage that saw the virgin birth as a prophesy from Isaiah.

Both Matthew and Luke had a common tradition of "prophecy" of a virgin birth in Bethleham, and the book of Mark telling of Jesus of Nazareth. They wrote independent, contradictory storys to get Jesus to be born in Bethleham but grow up in Nazareth.

This is why I said earlier that you had a ‘Clash of the Titans’ understanding of what is going on back then. It’s not meant to be an insul,t just a good example of what happens when you take art literally in regard to gods.

Literally? I think I have emphasized that people could have been referring to the Logos in figurative terms as a revealer of wisdom. It is others who insist this poetic Logos reference has to be a literal flesh and blood person, not me.

So not about being signs of him being the messiah but signs of him being what again? A teacher of Gnosis? Is that what you mean by revealer?

The signs gospels portrays Jesus as the Light of the World, the Good Shepherd, etc. But it tells us very little about any moral precepts that he actually taught.

What do you assume Luke and Matthew thought they were writing?

Probably fiction. Or perhaps some sort of midrash mish-mash without really thinking about what really happened.

Just need to support your literalism now.

What literalism?

I didn’t see anything (other than expectations not being met) that says Paul thought that Jesus never existed at a point in history.

How can it be said that God is appointing the apostles, without mentioning that the gospels specifically say it was Jesus who appointed the same people as disciples? How can Paul say that it is he, not Jesus, who has been given the task of establishing the new covenant? How can the epistles talk of Jesus' future appearance without mentioning that he had already appeared? How can Paul say that Christ is a newly revealed "secret/mystery" of God hitherto hidden for a long period of time, and that knowledge about him comes from scripture and revelation? All those things are consistant with Paul not knowing of a historical Jesus. How do you fit that in with a historical Jesus?

Then the question goes back to why are they using Paul’s texts? Why not someone else or just make-up their own?

People were passing around these New Testament texts ever since they were written. The proto-orthodox leaders built on what the grassroots had already come to accept.

Because as of now I am still uninformed about these mystery cults that you think influenced Paul.

Could I suggest some links where you could read about them?

Are you saying that no one was able to write proficiently enough back then in those groups to use and they weren’t capable of just making it up? Isn’t there some kind of grand conspiracy and cover-up going on that shouldn’t force them (whoever that is) to have to use Paul’s letters?

No, I am not saying that.

So you can’t understand the sacrifice in the Gospels without Paul’s letters?

The concept of a blood atonement is very weak in the gospels. Paul stesses the blood atonement. If they wanted to make a strong case for the blood atonement, they needed books like Paul's.

How does blood atonement cause salvation?

Good question!

Why don't you ask that of the other Christians here?

And we are speaking of the blood of a deity in heaven?

Yes, Hebrews 9 speaks of the sprinking of divine blood in Heaven. That comes from your book, not mine.

Because they bleed and die up there just like people?

Since it is your book that speaks of blood being sprinkled in heaven, where do you think that blood came form?

They can have the same influence but I would like you to explain how it’s possible to mix salvation of a messiah sacrificing his life on earth and a god dying in heaven.

The mixing of the two strands of Christianity occured later. People collected the works of Paul about a blood atonement, and the gospels and an earthly dying savior, and combined them as though they were talking of the same being. They simply assuming Paul was speaking of the same Jesus and same location as the gospel writers. They also edited the gospels to make them match better. Perhaps they also edited Paul's writings.

What kind of conspiracy are we talking about, at what scale? Are you a like that one poster who goes on forever about Constantine making Christianity up with Eusebius?

It doesn't require a conspiracy. The church leading into the Middle Ages controlled nearly all of the ability to copy documents. They copied the documents they wanted.

You don’t even have a guess on if Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome?

Since there are many contradictory traditions about martyrdom of the apostles, then most traditions about apostle martyrdom must be false.
We have two conflicting traditions about Paul. Tradition says that Peter was martyred in Rome, but as the Peter described by Paul seems to be local from Jerusalem, there is good reason to doubt it.

My answer? I don't know.

Why do you ask?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yeah I get the point. You don't like to answer questions about your theory because you haven't thought it out yourself.

Sir, I have probably answered hundreds of questions on this thread. Have you not noticed that this thread is huge?

My point is not that I don't like to answer honest questions. My point is that it is a waste of time to answer many repetitions of the same questions to the same person, who refuses to read links that give more information, but insists that I come here and repeat the same answers over and over for his benefit.

Can you understand how it is not in my interest to repeat the same answers to a person who simply ignores the answers and asks the same questions again? Can you understand why that might be frustrating?

Now imagine the lawyer trying to present a case that argues he doesn't have to actually have to layout what happened and starts responding to questions with who's on first jokes instead of trying to actually answer the questions.

Why is the lawyer on the witness stand?

I have told you that Doherty is the witness regarding Greek mystery cults. I have shown you where he makes his case, and have told you where he is available for cross-examination. And yet you absolutely refuse to ask the witness questions. Why? Are you scared? If you question what he wrote, you could ask him directly. And yet you refuse to do that, don't you?

And my "Who's on first" comments were sarcasm. I usually try to avoid sarcasm, but your endless repeats of the same irrelevant questions seemed to call for a sarcastic immitation of your posts. You do have a sense of humor, don't you?

Why would anyone think the preponderance of evidence is with the side of the lawyer who can't even articulate what he think happened?

I summarized the mythical Jesus view in post 204. Where exactly did you write an alternative?

If the side that refuses to present a case loses, have you lost? Is this case closed for lack of an alternative representing your side?

 

[Johnnz]

The central issue behind opposition to the reliability of the NT is not literary but philosophical.

Michael Goheen writes:
" We need to return to the Enlightenment of the 18th century. At that time western humankind believed the light had gone on; they believed they now possessed the light in which they could rightly understand and control the world. They believed that the light they now possessed would light the way to a new world of freedom, justice, and prosperity. They had discovered the light of the world. All they needed to do was faithfully follow that light. What was that light? This was best expressed at the time in the couplet of Alexander Pope: “Nature and nature’s laws lay hid in night; God said „Let Newton be!‟ and all was light.” The light was the scientific method that had been formulated by Newton. Human reason, without the guidance of God’s revelation, was able to employ the scientific method to come to a true understanding of the world"

That view leads to denial of the supernatural. Treat this debate as an issue of literary composition and it will go on endlessly. One party has a basic stance against the possibility that the NT accounts are reliable simply because their message, if they were accurate, is an impossibility. Case proven.

John
NZ

 

[GakuseiDon]

How can it be said that God is appointing the apostles, without mentioning that the gospels specifically say it was Jesus who appointed the same people as disciples?

NT references please?

How can Paul say that it is he, not Jesus, who has been given the task of establishing the new covenant?

NT references please?

How can the epistles talk of Jesus' future appearance without mentioning that he had already appeared?

NT references please?

How can Paul say that Christ is a newly revealed "secret/mystery" of God hitherto hidden for a long period of time, and that knowledge about him comes from scripture and revelation?

Actually, I suspect that Paul is saying that his own gospel -- that Christ means salvation has come to the Gentiles as well -- is the mystery. Anyway, NT references please?

All those things are consistant with Paul not knowing of a historical Jesus. How do you fit that in with a historical Jesus?

It's pretty easy. The epistle writers wrote "occasional" letters whose purpose was to address living issues in the early church. The only way you can say that those letters miss a "historical Jesus" is by assuming that you would expect them to be writing for us rather than for them.

FIRST you need to establish that they should have included such details into their letters. Doherty hasn't done that other than by begging the question, and just assuming that they would. Yet, if Doherty's MJ theory is correct, then he has moved Paul from being a secondary source about Jesus to a PRIMARY source. Wouldn't people have been interested in hearing more about the mythical Jesus from a PRIMARY source?

Imagine that Doherty is right, and Paul is a primary source for a mythical Jesus. What questions would YOU ask of Paul? Does Paul answer those questions?

On the other hand, if Paul was a secondary source, writing to already established churches to whom Christ had already been preached, then much is explained. Imagine a church congregation 2000 years ago, to whom Paul and others had already preached about the historical Jesus. What do YOU think Paul would be writing to them about? Note that you will need to relate it to the perspective of people living 2000 years ago. You cannot -- like Doherty -- just assume their needs to be the same as our own.

 

[ElijahW]

I wrote an extensive post on how I think Christianity started. What is your alternative? Please post an alternative that does a better job of explaining the available data.

Do you have problems understanding how the historical core explains the data? If you have problems understanding it then I will gladly explain to the best of my ability. I didn’t think that was the case, I thought you just wanted more evidence, not that you didn’t understand how it was possible. So please explain to me what parts you have difficulty with so I know where to focus. I’m not going to be able to provide more evidence or disprove the conspiracy theory you think happened at some point but if there is something that you actually have difficulty in understanding then I will try to help.

For instance:

Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20/Matthew 5:3)
Only the person who has despised wealth is worthy of God. (Seneca EM XVIII 13)
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves. (Matthew 10:9-10).
Wearing only ever one shirt is better than needing two; and wearing just a cloak with no shirt at all is better still. Going bare-foot, if you can, is better than wearing sandals. (Musonius XIX)
Salute no man by the way. (Luke 10:4)
Keep to yourself, quite unsociable, exchanging greetings with no one, neither friend nor stranger. (Lucian)
Seek, and ye shall find (Luke 11:9/Matthew 7:7)
Seek and you will find. (Epictetus)And so on. See (Common Paine: Was Jesus a Cynic? )

I can see the embrace of poverty coming from the Cynics or just being common in most cultures. But some of the other ideas are overly common or not corresponding properly. What I’m looking for though is more in the area of their understanding of the universe and god. I do agree that Jesus could have been influenced by Cynics but I’m looking for the metaphysical influence that would be more relative to the conversation we are having.


The one real winner I saw on the site was this:

“Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” (Luke 17:33/Matthew 10:39)

“Socrates cannot be preserved by an act that is shameful... It is dying that preserves him, not fleeing.”(Epictetus)

This is where I think you need to look for the influence on Jesus’ sacrifice. Not gods dying in heaven but the most famous philosopher of that time sacrificing his life for sake of the republic/empire he was trying to build. Also the tale of Codrus if I haven’t already mentioned that.

Mystery cults were secret cults that did not write much. Even if they had written, it is doubtful their works would have survived to today. However, scholars have studied them and found indicators as to what they believed and practiced. I am no expert on Greek culture, but I have told you where you can ask your questions of one who knows far more about this. Why don't you ask there? If your questioning is serious, I would think you would want to talk to those that know more about it.

How could they study them if they didn’t leave any writings? Take a look at some cave paintings and take a literal stab at it? A passing remark about their mythology from someone who has no actual knowledge of the movement? Where did you want me to ask about your theory, that you believe in but are unsure of the support?

What do you mean by constant? Are you saying that gods were never thought to do anything? If so, that certainly doesn't apply to the Jews, who thought that their God and other heavenly beings did many things.

Old Man:

But what do you call God?

Justin: That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things—that, indeed, is God.

If it was a Hellenized Jew then it applied.

It is necessary therefore, that every created thing should at times be changed. For this is a property of every created thing, just as it is an attribute of God to be unchangeable.

For the images which are presented to the sight in executed things are subject to dissolution; but those which are presented in the One uncreate may last for ever, being durable, eternal, and unchangeable. Philo Allegorical Interpretation

And I think many Greeks also thought their gods did many things.

Which they got from Plato.

“That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is.” Timaeus

“The seen is the changing, and the unseen is the unchanging.” Phaedo

As I discussed earlier on this thread, there are verses in the Bible describing beings doing things in heaven including a war in heaven and sprinkling of blood in heaven.

Summarized by Paul in 2 Cor 4:18 “As we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.”

You just need to explain why you think those descriptions in the bible should be taken literally.

OK, so there were some people who believed that gods did acts of salvation? Those would have been Paul's audience.

Not that I know of. There were people who thought they were anthropomorphic but because they lacked education. I don’t know of a god offering salvation movement. What do you have in mind?

I don't know if God exists, but I certainly don't look to understand him by taking poetry literally

You just did it with wisdom. What makes god different from wisdom?

I already answered this. See post 204.

All I got was this for Paul, “Paul became a champion of a variant of the Jesus savior myth in Asia minor and Greece, proclaiming his savior god based on his interpretations of scripture.” I don’t know what variant of Jesus savior myth you have going on is and I don’t see what you thought Peter’s ideology was that made him a part of your scenario for the Jesus origin.

Neither of these seem to describe a kingdom on earth. The first describes a realm without food or drink, a realm of the Spirit, the second descibes a realm without flesh and blood, probably heaven.

So you think every time someone mentions the kingdom of god or heaven they mean a magical place correct? The idea of a messiah fixing the world or restoring Israel was never in the picture. It was always about getting into heaven correct? No politics involved, just magical realms? For every group of Christian and Jew?

Why is Jesus necesary? Good question!
Since this is the Christian Forum, and Christians believe Jesus is necessary, perhaps they should answer your question.

I know why Jesus was necessary from an orthodox position but what I don’t understand is, if they are trying to engraft the gentiles into the promise to the Jews why use Jesus used instead of God for them to have faith in. With the orthodox position he is providing a new example of leadership to follow so the people stop following earthly rulers.

Like I said, it was probably a ritual practice identifying one with the death of Christ. This ritual aspect of baptism is very different from the gospel accounts.
What do you think Romans 6 teaches about baptism?

I think it’s about following his example/spirit which leads to your death for sake of the kingdom. The problem is that I don’t know what they are following or being a part of if he never existed on earth. That’s because I’m not sure what deity you think Jesus is because I just know him as the messiah who sacrificed his life trying to build a kingdom. The god dying in heaven stuff is hard for me to get any understanding of.

I said I don't know where Paul thought he died. I am saying Paul doesn't seem to be indicating a man who recently died on earth. Most likely it was thought to be somewhere in the heavens, or was completely figurative with no location selected.
And no, we are not doing this for the sake of "my theory". We are looking at what is actually in the epistles, to see what they really taught.

I’m going along for sake of “your theory”. Problem is that we are at the one part of certainty I thought we had and it is now changed into an “I don’t know”. I guess because you don’t have evidence to support what is going on; you have a lack of evidence you would expect for a historical Jesus.

So the competing case for the preponderance of evidence just got a lot weaker since you can’t even say where you thought Jesus died if he didn’t die on earth.

Something like that.

I gave you three choices there. If you want to combine everything up into a big pot you may want to take a sec to explain it.

Mark's gospel? I have answered this several times.Why must I keep repeating myself?
Just as people tell stories of Santa to give them hope, or other legends develop to lead people into a realm of fantasy and hope, Mark could have written for the same purpose.

Because you are vague and unclear about what you think is going on is why. Mark’s gospel is giving hope how? What is your understanding of the story? Comparing it to Santa clause does nothing to explain what you think is going on in the story to provide hope.

 

[ElijahW]

[FONT=&quot]

Read post #204.

What have you given us as an alternative? Nothing! If you don't like post #204, why don't you give us an alternative that explains the beginning of Christianity better? Why hide behind irrelevant questions instead of actually taking a stand for something? Do you even have a position of your own on Jesus?

And yes there are things I don't know. If we don't know, it is better to say, "I don't know" then to make something up and pretend we know.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We already know the alternative don’t we? What do I need to explain to you? It’s your theory that is new and needs to be explained. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It’s better for you to make up the most rational possibility for your theory, in order to see if any scenario is capable of producing what you suspect happened.

People today read the gospels and think they prove that Jesus rose from the dead. If those documents convince sophisticated modern people, why couldn't they have convinced people back then with far less access to accumulated scholarly knowledge?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sophisticated modern people aren’t convinced by those texts. People are convinced of Jesus by other people who have the “faith” he is the messiah and rose from the dead. Usually parents. Without the support of peers and people you look to for guidance thinking he rose from the dead then it’s hard to imagine someone believing Mark was historical, especially if they were reading a version where he came back instead of just an empty tomb. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Believing the messiah came and died without a victory would need something more than a random encounter with a book.

The virgin birth was probably part of the common heritage that saw the virgin birth as a prophesy from Isaiah.

Both Matthew and Luke had a common tradition of "prophecy" of a virgin birth in Bethleham, and the book of Mark telling of Jesus of Nazareth. They wrote independent, contradictory storys to get Jesus to be born in Bethleham but grow up in Nazareth.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So the virgin birth was a big expectation back then of the messiah or something else? At least a person right? And what about the figure who was supposed to suffer from Isaiah? A person or deity?

Literally? I think I have emphasized that people could have been referring to the Logos in figurative terms as a revealer of wisdom. It is others who insist this poetic Logos reference has to be a literal flesh and blood person, not me.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And what is this logos in actual terms then? If you don’t imagine an anthropomorphic entity existing magically someplace, what do you think they are referring to?

The signs gospels portrays Jesus as the Light of the World, the Good Shepherd, etc. But it tells us very little about any moral precepts that he actually taught.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You think it was about morality precepts? Why? Is that what you think Jesus or the originator of the signs material came to do; teach people morality?

Probably fiction. Or perhaps some sort of midrash mish-mash without really thinking about what really happened.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So both Luke and Matthew were aware that it was fiction and were just continuing on in that tradition? When and how did it get confused for history?

What literalism?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How you interpret wisdom in proverbs.

How can it be said that God is appointing the apostles, without mentioning that the gospels specifically say it was Jesus who appointed the same people as disciples? How can Paul say that it is he, not Jesus, who has been given the task of establishing the new covenant? How can the epistles talk of Jesus' future appearance without mentioning that he had already appeared? How can Paul say that Christ is a newly revealed "secret/mystery" of God hitherto hidden for a long period of time, and that knowledge about him comes from scripture and revelation? All those things are consistant with Paul not knowing of a historical Jesus. How do you fit that in with a historical Jesus?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’d need to see what verses you are having problems with specifically but they do talk about his historical appearance, you just assume weird interpretations or interpolations. Paul didn’t know a historical Jesus… that’s a given. But that he thinks he wasn’t actually crucified and that it’s just figurative language, is you bending scripture to your own desires, without explaining what it’s figurative of. I don’t see the Gospels as being in as much ideological conflict as you do with Paul’s letters. That’s because I see the gospels coming after Paul’s letters and reflecting Paul’s messianic salvation ideology. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

People were passing around these New Testament texts ever since they were written. The proto-orthodox leaders built on what the grassroots had already come to accept.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So Paul was a popular figure that they were capitalizing on? Popular with who, where, why?

Could I suggest some links where you could read about them?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Not if you haven’t checked the evidence they are using to support the claims on the site. And if you’ve checked into the evidence then it would be easier to give that to me directly instead of making me track down where the person who created the website got the ideas from, if they even say.

No, I am not saying that.

Then why are they using Paul’s letters?

The concept of a blood atonement is very weak in the gospels. Paul stesses the blood atonement. If they wanted to make a strong case for the blood atonement, they needed books like Paul's.[/quote[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]]I’m not understanding why they needed his books or what ideas he had in there that were so important in understanding blood atonement. It is especially confusing why they used letters of someone writing about blood atonement of a god in heaven when they are talking about the atonement by blood of a messiah claimant on earth.

Good question!

Why don't you ask that of the other Christians here?

I don’t need to ask other Christians how atonement is achieved with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. That I understand myself. What I don’t understand is blood atonement in heaven or whatever understanding you have going on.

Yes, Hebrews 9 speaks of the sprinking of divine blood in Heaven. That comes from your book, not mine.
Since it is your book that speaks of blood being sprinkled in heaven, where do you think that blood came form?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] I don’t see that in Hebrews 9. I see them comparing the blood of animals to the shedding of his own blood. Quote and highlight what you are seeing please.

The mixing of the two strands of Christianity occured later. People collected the works of Paul about a blood atonement, and the gospels and an earthly dying savior, and combined them as though they were talking of the same being. They simply assuming Paul was speaking of the same Jesus and same location as the gospel writers. They also edited the gospels to make them match better. Perhaps they also edited Paul's writings.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yeah but I don’t understand how you combine the two ideologies. That there were two Jesus’ in two different ideologies I get but how you combine a deity in heaven dying and a messiah dying on earth together into a salvation theory is difficult to picture. That is mainly because I don’t understand the deity dying in heaven ideology you are working with.

It doesn't require a conspiracy. The church leading into the Middle Ages controlled nearly all of the ability to copy documents. They copied the documents they wanted.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Who added Paul into the mix? Who asserted that Mark was historical and start the orthodox movement? When did the rewriting of history begin and end?

Since there are many contradictory traditions about martyrdom of the apostles, then most traditions about apostle martyrdom must be false.
We have two conflicting traditions about Paul. Tradition says that Peter was martyred in Rome, but as the Peter described by Paul seems to be local from Jerusalem, there is good reason to doubt it.

My answer? I don't know.

Why do you ask?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’m asking in order to figure out how the faith spread in your model of Christianity. What’s the good reason to doubt it again? Just because accounts of his death contradict each other? So that means nothing happened and Paul lived happily ever after preaching the message of Jesus dying in heaven? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And I take it you are a skeptic of the martyrdoms in general then. So the explanation for how the faith spread wasn’t from anyone imitating Jesus or the story of Jesus? It was just the hope in the story of Mark that was so inspiring that the people responded with faith in it? Some point down the line some unknown church officials decide to create martyrdom tales for some of the early Christians? Any details on when they added in the martyrdom aspect to the apostles? Was the story of Stephen a later addition as well? If so about when?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Foxe’s book of martyrs is void of any actual accounts of martyrs that formed the church and Tertullian’s comment about the martyrs being the seeds of the church is just part of the orthodox cover-up?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Sir, I have probably answered hundreds of questions on this thread. Have you not noticed that this thread is huge?

My point is not that I don't like to answer honest questions. My point is that it is a waste of time to answer many repetitions of the same questions to the same person, who refuses to read links that give more information, but insists that I come here and repeat the same answers over and over for his benefit.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can you understand how it is not in my interest to repeat the same answers to a person who simply ignores the answers and asks the same questions again? Can you understand why that might be frustrating? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If the information I was looking for was on those links that then you wouldn’t be having these follow-up questions. If you had thought your theory out before deciding it was something to actually consider, then I wouldn’t be asking you questions you haven’t already asked of yourself. You would know the information I would need to build a picture of what happened to turn a mythical Jesus deity into a historical Jesus messiah.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you really think I’m being disingenuous or lying about needing this information to build a model? Do you think I should be able to imagine what happened with what little information you’ve given me? I have no idea what happened historically in your mind or what ideology you are assuming of anyone back then.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]

Why is the lawyer on the witness stand?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You’re not. You’re doing that part where the lawyer talks to the jury and tries to convince them what happened before and after presenting the evidence. There is probably an official word for both of these kinds of remarks but damn stupidity gets me again.

I have told you that Doherty is the witness regarding Greek mystery cults. I have shown you where he makes his case, and have told you where he is available for cross-examination. And yet you absolutely refuse to ask the witness questions. Why? Are you scared? If you question what he wrote, you could ask him directly. And yet you refuse to do that, don't you?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And I have told you that he has been cross examined many many times and has been shown to lack the evidence to support his understanding of Paul. Have you been following him and Spin going at it on the other board? How do you think he is doing in supporting his case or his translation of that bit of scripture?

And my "Who's on first" comments were sarcasm. I usually try to avoid sarcasm, but your endless repeats of the same irrelevant questions seemed to call for a sarcastic immitation of your posts. You do have a sense of humor, don't you?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yeah how it started, climaxed, was confused and covered-up, are irrelevant questions. Much more irrelevant; what they actual believed, not just figurative representation. <end sarcasm> I do have a sense of humor but when it’s for humor’s sake. When it is to belittle my questions or assume that I am somehow not being honest in why I am asking them, then I’m not going to consider that being humorous.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I summarized the mythical Jesus view in post 204. Where exactly did you write an alternative?

If the side that refuses to present a case loses, have you lost? Is this case closed for lack of an alternative representing your side?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I didn’t think I needed to write an alternative. I assumed you were already familiar with the historical account of how this all came about. I asked you at the beginning of this response what your difficulties in understanding how this started from a historical core were and if you let me know, I will try to help you as best I can.[/FONT]

 

[AlexBP]

Besides, how do you know Joseph was the son of David? Matthew and Luke give contradictory geneaolgies of Joseph. Obviously at least one is wrong. If folks were using wrong genealogies, how do you know genealogies were that important?

You're not going to win any games by playing that card. Feeling lazy, I'll just copy the answer from here.

With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary&#8217;s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph&#8217;s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus&#8217; legal father), through David&#8217;s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus&#8217; blood relative), though David&#8217;s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for &#8220;son-in-law,&#8221; and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother&#8217;s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke&#8217;s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, &#8220;so it was thought&#8221;.

So that deals with the claim of conflicting genealogies.

I have probably answered hundreds of questions on this thread. Unfortunately, I have limited time to spend here.

I don't know any instances in which any Jew used that phrase figuratively (other than Paul). But then I haven't read everything written by Jews, nor am I an expert on such things.

I'm not an expert on such things either, but I'll go ahead and give you an answer. There's no instance where anybody in the ancient Jewish world uses the phrase in question to indicate a metaphorical but otherwise meaningless connection. When the phrase is used, it means physical descent and none other.

Your attempt to bring in the quote from Galatians concerning "sons of Abraham" is irrelevant. There are instances in Jewish literature where "sons of _______" did not necessarily refer to physical ancestry, as for instance in "sons of Korah". However with the phrase "of the seed" (which should actually be translated "of the sperm") there are none.

Paul says he was, "separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord". (Note that I removed the comma in that quote. After all, the original didn't have a comma there.)

That sure looks like he is saying that he got his gospel from the [Old Testament] scriptures. Nowhere does he say he got this gospel from Jesus or from his disciples.

Your attempt to make a big deal about the missing comma in the original isn't going to get you anywhere. Ancient Greek manuscripts written at that time didn't contain commas, period. (Yuk yuk) So if we put the entire thing, including the phrase that you carefully chopped out, without commas we get this:

"Paul a bondservant of Jesus Christ called to be an apostle separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh"

This fits perfectly well with the explanation that in Paul's view, the Old Testament prophets promised the arrival of the messiah, and then the messiah arrived in the person of Jesus Christ, who was a descendant of David in the flesh. It does not in particular suggest that Paul believed that the Paul got a gospel from the Old Testament. Indeed, your interpretation makes no sense, because nobody in contemporary Judaism did believe that the Old Testament promised 'good news' in the form of a spiritual being'. Instead, they believed that the Old Testament promised a messiah, who could only be a flesh-and-blood descendant of David. Supposing that Paul is referring to a spiritual being that the Old Testament promises to send is ridiculous, because the Old Testament does not promise any such thing. Supposing that Paul is referring to a flesh-and-blood messiah descended from David makes perfect sense, because the Old Testament actually does say that.

In any case the meaning of this passage is not in dispute among people who aren't clutching at straws while trying desperately to support a crackpot theory that they see being destroyed by a mountain of evidence. Let me provide two other translations of the same passage. First from the NCV:

"From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus. God called me to be an apostle and chose me to tell the Good News. god promised this Good News long ago through his prophets, as it is written in the Holy Scriptures. The Good News is about God's Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. As a man, he was born from the family of David."

Now from the NIV:

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God&#8212;the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who in his earthly life was a descendant of David"

Now both of these translations were prepared by teams of scholars who understand the original language, the historical context, and the theological beliefs of the people involved in great depth. You, I hope you'll forgiving me for saying, know very little about these topics, which is why you've made so many embarrassing mistakes in this thread. So it's clear that the people who actually know what they're talking about are sure that Paul was referring to Jesus christ as a literal, in-the-flesh descendant of David. What gives you the authority to override these people? (If you go your usual route of insisting that "there are many scholars" who take your side in this debate, please be prepared to actually provide the names of the scholars who do so.)

Oh, please. If you only had the writings of Paul, would you argue that Paul claims a gospel, and gospel means good news, so therefore it was recent, so therefore it was on earth, so therefore God himself was recently incarnate, and so therefore the earthly Jesus was known by Paul's peers (even though Pual never mentions any of that)? Can you see how some would call this a stretch?

This last argument that you're making is a low-rent rhetorical device that isn't going to fool anybody. In fact, if all I had was the writings of Paul I certainly could argue that "Paul claims a gospel, and gospel means good news, so therefore it was recent, so therefore it was on earth, so therefore God himself was recently incarnate, and so therefore the earthly Jesus was known by Paul's peers". However, I would not have to, since I also have the mountain of other evidence that has already been presented by other people do shoot down your position. However, let's ignore the fact that all your explanation are so thin and just imagine that the probability of you being right on each point is one half, or .5. The probability that you're right about the meaning of "seed of David" is .5. the probability that you're right about "gospel" not indicating recent events is .5. The probability of you being right about both things is .5 * .5 = .25. Now the probability that you're right about "the Lord's brother" not actually meaning the Lord's brother is .5, so now we're at .25 * .5 = .125. The probability that you're right about "princes of this world" actually being demons is .5. .125 * .5 = .0625. The probability that you're right about the reconstruction in Thessalonions is .5, so now .0625 * .5 = .03125. And so on, the more excuses you make, the more far-fetched your position becomes.

 

[AlexBP]

Once again, a common aspect of the Christian culture.

Let’s back up a second. Your theory is that in the first century there were separate communities, one Christian community that we know of from the letters of Paul and a “Q community”. Paul’s community supposedly believed in Jesus Christ as a heavenly being who never lived on earth while the “Q community” supposedly had a human founder. In your theory, Mark was a member of the “Q community” and Mark “combined Jewish Messiah ferver, Q teaching, Jewish midrash use of scripture, Greek epic tale structure, and the dying Jesus legend to tell his own story of a hero who had lived on earth”. So, if your theory is true, the only things that Paul and Mark knew in common about Jesus were that Jesus died and resurrected. Paul supposedly knew nothing about the things that Jesus Christ taught during his lifetime, because in your theory Mark was the first to attach those teachings do the story of Jesus Christ dying and being resurrected.
Now I’ve given you a list of teachings, sayings, and incidents of Jesus Christ that both Paul and the gospelers were familiar with. (I take this moment to emphasize once again that the list I gave you was only a tiny portion of the total and that entire books have been written on the topic.) And you respond by saying that these things are “common aspects of the Christian culture”. But that ruins your entire theory. Since these commonalities are things that the Jews would generally disagree with, if Paul and the Gospelers held them in common then they must have come from a common Christian source. And if Paul was familiar with teachings, sayings, and incidents of the historical Jesus, then your theory that Paul knew nothing about Jesus other than the death and resurrection must be false.
So let’s look again. The Jews believed that divorce on demand was acceptable. Paul believed that “the Lord” had said specifically that neither a husband nor a wife can get a divorce. Mark reports that Jesus said the same thing. So apparently this “common Christian culture” includes knowledge of the fact that Jesus taught divorce to be unacceptable, in contradiction of Jewish law.
Likewise on the issue of hypocrisy, both Paul and the gospels contains discourses extremely similar in structure and wording on the topic. Compare the second chapter of Romans to the sermon on the mount. You say “common culture”. So the Christian culture that both groups are familiar with apparently included Jesus’ speech on that topic. (Note that I am not saying that anybody was in favor of hypocrisy, so if you’d stop pretending that I am it would be much appreciated.)
Likewise on the issue of forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. Paul believed, in contradiction of Jewish belief, that forgiveness of sins came from Jesus Christ. The gospelers mention that Jesus himself offered forgiveness of sins. You respond “So?” So the “common Christian culture” apparently includes Jesus offering forgiveness of sins.
Likewise the emphasis on voluntary poverty and rejection of riches, if Paul and Mark both put emphasis on it, as do all three of the other gospelers. Hence it must come from a common source, so apparently the common culture contained that as well. You’ve repeatedly claimed that it comes from the Greek cynics but we’ve not yet seen any evidence that there was any similarity at all between the Greek cynics and early Christians in their thought. I’ve already suggested real, scholarly sources which point out that scholarship in recent generations has turned sharply against the idea of any Greek influence on the foundations of Christianity. If you’d like to respond to that, you’re welcome to do so.[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Likewise on the great commandment, both Paul and the gospelers believe that it has been elevated above the other commandments. While the quote in question comes from the Old Testament, the elevation of it above other laws does not. Hence the shared knowledge between Paul and the gospelers must include the fact that Jesus elevated that commandment above others.
Likewise on opposition to the Pharisees. You claim that this emerges in both Paul and the gospels because “The Pharisees represented Judaism, a rival religion to the Christians. Why be surprised that all Christians were opposed to their rivals?” But there were numerous rival religions and no particular reason why Paul would, in letters to Greeks and other audiences far separated from the Pharisee-dominated culture of Palestine, put so much emphasis on them on the related conflicts involving the law.
There are plenty of other similarities between the letters of Paul and the gospels as well. For example, Paul describes the institution of the Eucharist and so do all of the gospels. You’ve previously tried to say that both of them copied this episode from the tradition of Mithras, but I’ve pointed out that the tradition of Mithras didn’t exist until several generations later, and that in any case there aren’t many similarities between the Mithras mythos and the Christian teaching. So both Paul and the gospelers must have had a common source of information for the fact that Jesus Christ, on his last night before his execution, took bread and wine and ordered his followers to eat and drink it as his flesh and blood.
In 1 Cor 9, Paul says that “In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.” Now this obviously indicates that Paul is familiar with the fact that Jesus gave the same commandment when he sent out the seventy-two in Luke 10. “The Lord” can only refer to Jesus saying this personally, as no such command appears anywhere in Hebrew Scripture. So both Paul and the gospelers were familiar with Jesus saying this.
In 1 Thess 4, Paul says this: “For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” This obviously indicates Paul’s familiarity with many details of the eschatological discourses in the Bible.
You’ve already shown familiarity with Paul’s warning at the start of Galatians concerning false teaching. This displays familiarity with the warnings that Jesus gave concerning the same, as for instance in Mark 13. What makes this particularly notable is that both of them warn not only about ordinary false teachings of men, but also about false teachings appearing to be backed by miraculous displays. This makes a sharp contrast with Old Testament tradition, which generally looked on such things as confirmation of true prophecy. Hence Paul must have been familiar with what Jesus said on the topic.
In Galatians 4, Paul mentions that Jesus prayed using the term “abba”. This is roughly translatable as “daddy” and using it as a reference to God would have been extremely unusual. Hence we can safely assume that Paul is familiar with Jesus using that word.
1 Cor 15 mentions Jesus being buried. I’m pretty sure that’s in the gospels somewhere. Obviously if Paul didn’t believed that Jesus was a man on earth, he wouldn’t believed that Jesus had been buried.
Galatians 4 mentions that Jesus was born of a woman. I think that’s in the Gospels as well. Once again Paul wouldn’t have written that unless he believed that Jesus Christ was person on earth.
1 Thess 5 uses the phrases “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" with obvious connection to Jesus using the same.
Romans 12 includes the phrases “bless those who persecute you” and “bless and do not curse”, also “do not repay anyone evil for evil”, also “I am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean by itself”, and plentiful other phrases indicating familiarity with the teachings of Jesus. As I mentioned before, the ordering of Paul’s repetition of Jesus’ sayings in this passage matches that in Matthew, suggesting either that Paul had the gospel of Matthew or that the two used a common source for their knowledge of the relevant portion of Jesus’ life.
These indications that Paul and the gospelers had common knowledge about the earthly life of Jesus are just a small percentage of the total. As I mentioned before, it takes a lengthy book to list all of the commonalities between the two sources. You ignored that, so here's the book again:

Amazon.com: Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (9780802801241): David Wenham: Books

Alternatively, if you don't like that book, feel free to try this one:

Amazon.com: What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (9780802844453): N. T. Wright: Books

Alternatively, if you don't like either of those two, you can read one of the several dozen others on the same topic. Once you've actually done so and explained why you don't accept their arguments, then I'll accept that your theory about Paul and the gospelers should not just be laughed off the stage.

The problem you seem to be having is quite similar to the one that young-earth creationists have. They read only books by other creationists and as a result come to believe that the academy is engaged in a heated debate about whether the earth is really 6,000 years old. They are wrong. Not one serious academic in ten thousand takes their views seriously. You read only material by various cranks (though about 95% of it comes from one single crank) and you come to believe that the academy is engaged in a heated debate about whether Jesus existed. You are wrong. Not one serious academic in ten thousand takes your views seriously. When you encounter a creationist, you probably find their denial to be utterly bizarre. When everyone else reads the nonsense that you post in this thread, they find you to be equally bizarre.

 

[Johnnz]

You are wrong. Not one serious academic in ten thousand takes your views seriously. When you encounter a creationist, you probably find their denial to be utterly bizarre. When everyone else reads the nonsense that you post in this thread, they find you to be equally bizarre.

Not bizarre - just hopelessly uninformed and doggedly locked into his unstated preconceptions.

John
NZ