Did Jesus Exist?

[AlexBP]

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?

There is no conflict between being a disciple and being an apostle. "Apostle" means messenger and disciple means "learner". There is no reason why a person can't be both. Indeed it makes obvious sense that those who learned from Jesus would be among those chosen to spread the message. It would be very strange if they weren't.

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

Paul never says any such thing. Are you referring to 2 Corinthians where Paul says "He has made us [Paul and fellow missionaries] servants of a new covenant"? If so, that's the exact opposite of Paul claiming that he's the one who establishes the new covenant.

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

When Paul talks about Jesus' future appearance, he specifically describes it as happening "when the Lord comes again". [1 Thess 4:15] This provides yet more proof that Paul believed that Jesus had been on earth, not that we needed any more. That said, suppose you were right about this instead of wrong. What would that prove? If I'm talking about the next time my grandfather comes to visit, it would hardly be surprising if I didn't mention the last time he came to visit, especially if I say only a few sentences on the matter.

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?

Paul does not say that "knowledge about Jesus comes from scripture and revelation". Instead he says specifically that knowledge about Jesus comes from those in the church. In 1 Cor 15:

"For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I laboured even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed."

So here Paul is clearly saying that the gospel Paul preached and labored for is the same one as the apostles in Jerusalem believed. This and a great many other passages indicate that Paul placed great emphasis on the specific teaching and traditions that were handed down from the Jerusalem apostles. For example in Gal 2:

"It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain."

So Paul believed that the gospel was only correct if the Jerusalem apostles approved of it. Paul's beliefs on this issue are very clear. Paul thought it was the apostles in Jerusalem, lead by Peter, who were the source of authority and correctness concerning what the gosepl is and who has the authority to preach it. So when you say that Paul believed that "knowledge about him comes from scripture and revelation", you are flat-out wrong.

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

I fit them in by saying that you're making up all of them (except for the bit about the disciples also being apostles, which is common sense and requires no outside fitting at all). Indeed, the fact that you can only justify your theory by making up such outlandish and obviously false claims strongly suggests that your theory is in desperate straights. Why not just abandon your theory, and then you wouldn't have to say such silly things.

 

[AlexBP]

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? )

Okay, so we finally have some evidence for the supposed influence of the Cynics on Jesus's teachings. Unfortunately, as we'll see, your evidence doesn't stand up very well.

You quote four individuals among the Pagans: Seneca, Musonius, Lucian, and Epictetus. Among these four, only Epictetus truly belongs among the Cynics. More importantly, it's highly unlikely that any of these individuals had any influence on Jesus because (guess what?) they lived after Him, not before him. Lucian and Epictetus are second century, so you can't make any argument there. Seneca the younger and Musonius were mid-to-late first century, making it highly unlikely that anything they said got to Jesus or to any new testament author. In the case of Musonius we have none of his actual writing, only writings from later writers supposedly originating from him.

Now on to the quotes themselves. For most of them I note that there is no source at all. Your website lists the name "Lucian", but how am I supposed to look that up and verify that Lucian says any such thing? A proper reference would tell where in Lucian's work I look to verify it. One wonders why your website won't give me that. Perhaps they have something to hide? The only one that I can verify is the one from Seneca. Indeed the letter in question does contain a quote kind of like that, though your website has changed the wording to make it sound more similar to what Jesus said. However, the entire letter has nothing whatever in common with any teachings of Jesus. It is indeed a friendly letter to a buddy offering up suggestions, not a teaching of any source.

In sum, I think you've once again copied down something that you found on the internet without first checking whether it's true or not. How often is this going to have to happen before you start considering that some of the things posted on the internet just aren't true?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Several people have asked me where Peter and the Jerusalem apostles fit into all of this.

Paul is probably the only person that wrote about Peter and the Jerusalem apostles during the time of Peter's ministry. In I Cor. 15 he says that they saw the risen Lord, but he treats his own vision of the risen Lord as equivalent to theirs. So Paul apparently thinks they saw a similar vision as he did, not an actual earthly Jesus that they had been working together with in ministry on earth. Several times Paul mentions conflicts with these apostles over issues of the Jewish laws. Apparently their view of Jesus was close to Paul's, but with a more Jewish slant.That is about what we know.

However, the books of 1 and 2 Peter claim to be by Peter. They were probably actually written later by his followers. It is likely that these books echo the tradition that Peter taught. We can guess a few things about Peter from them. I will refer to the author of these books as "Peter" in quotes.

First, "Peter"s knowledge of Jesus seems to come solely from scripture, not from personal experince. It appears that the real Peter was following a Christ that he saw from his interpretation of scripture. For instance, in I Peter 2, when "Peter" recommends gentle submission to cruel masters who beat their slaves--I'm not making this us, that's what it says--he turns to a paraphrase of Isaiah 53 to illustrate his point. Why would not Peter and his followers have actually referred to the life of Jesus at this point? Why turn to Isaiah to give an interpretation of scripture to prove that Jesus suffered?

I Peter 2:18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 " Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth"; 23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
​

The portions in bold are a paraphrase of Isaiah 53. One wonders why "Peter" had to turn there to find information about Jesus.

Second, "Peter" has an anwer to those who call his Christ that he found in scripture a "cunningly devised fable". He offers this proof that the prophetic word is true:

16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
​

Huh? The confirmation that the scriptures are correct about Jesus was that "Peter" heard a voice from Heaven while he was on a mountain "with Jesus"? Could this have been nothing more than a perceived sound--or even an actual voice of God--that he heard in a religious trance? Where is the earthly story of Jesus in all this? Where are the miracles? Where is the triumphal resurrection? Where is the daily contact with Jesus? Surely if "Peter" wanted to convince us that his interpretation finding his Christ in scripture is real, he could have done better than tell us he heard what he thought was a voice coming out of heaven while he was having a religious experience on a mountain! He could have told of the empty tomb and the miracles had they really happened.

Third, "Peter" goes on a rampage against false teachers, calling them "natural brute beasts" (2 Peter 2:12). Apparently "Peter" thought Jesus was going to actually come to earth, and his wrath was expressed against those who disagreed.

2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
​

They thought all things continued as they were at the beginning, and "Peter" needs to remind them of the flood to indicate God really could move on the scene. Why resort to that? "Peter" would have had huge proof that all things were not continuing as they were since the beginning of creation, for God incarnate himself had walked on earth for several years! Again there is no word here that Jesus has already come, or that Jesus had promised he would come back. Instead the emphasis is that he will come, and the only evidence is from scripture.

If Jesus had already come, one wonders why "Peter" was so upset that these people thought Jesus was not coming. But if "Peter" was teaching a heavenly Jesus whom he was looking for to actually reveal himself soon on earth, and these people were suggesting his heavenly Jesus was nothing but cunningly devised fables that would never materialize, one can see why "Peter" would be upset.

All of this is strange if the real Peter had seen Jesus. Perhaps Peter and the Jerusalem disciples had been followers of a "Jesus" whom they got from their midrash interpretation of scripture; they then had a religious experience on a mountain which they describe as being "with Jesus" in which they heard a voice from heaven; Paul had originally opposed them; later Paul proclaimed a similar gospel based on his own visions and interpretation of scripture; Mark also picked up the story of Peter, and worked in the mountaintop experience (transfiguration) into a whole new story of an earthly life and death.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So then you only reject historical events that are religious in nature.

No, of course not, I never said that or anything close to that. Where did you get this from? (Please quote the words that made you come to this conclusion.)

All claims of historical events should stand or fall based on their evidence. Whether or not the claim is religious should make no difference in our historical investigation.

I attacked your words and the standard that you require us to adhere to.

The standard I have required in writing here on this thread is that we must show that the historical conclusion is more probably than the mythical conclusion before we conclude that the historical conclusion is correct. And you attack my standard? Really? Or are you making up some standard and attributing it to me?

You have said that you will only accept evidence that was written at the time of Jesus' ministry.

No, I never said that. Excuse me, but can you please tell me where you are getting this stuff? (Please quote the words that made you come to this conclusion.)
Any evidence can be used when establishing historical fact. Of course, if a writing is far removed from the event in question, that may be a reason to question the truth of the writing, but if the evidence is slightly removed from the event it records, that does not make the evidence worthless.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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"

Are you seriously suggesting that the scientific method has not led us to much understanding of the world? Sure, we haven't yet learned everything about the world, but surely you must agree that the scientific method taught us much. I can't understand why you attack the value of science in understanding the world.

That view leads to denial of the supernatural.

Are you not aware that many scientists believe in the supernatural?

Can you show me evidence of the supernatural? I will believe that supernatural things have occured if you show me the evidence.

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.

Which party is that? Certainly not me! If I have said anything even remotely close to what you claim, please quote back the sentence that you think makes that claim.

 

[doubtingmerle]

NT references please?

See post #217.

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.

How can you say Doherty hasn't shown what he would have expected the epistles writers to write had the historical Jesus existed? He lists 200 instances of where it would be expected that the writer would have mentioned an earthly Jesus had he existed. (see THE SOUND OF SILENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES: INTRODUCTION )
For instance:

I Thes 4:9 But concerning brotherly love you have no need that I should write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another;
​

Love was the very core of Jesus' teaching, according to the gospels. Why doesn't Paul give Jesus credit? Why does he say it was God who taught him? And if Paul shows no interest in what Jesus taught about love, why did Jesus even need to teach about love?

James 5:10 My brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience.
​

Had Jesus lived on earth, and been the supreme example of patience in suffering, would we expect James to turn to the prophets as his example?
There are plenty of instances in which we would expect loyal followers of Jesus to have mentioned something about Jesus on earth. And yet nowhere do we find a clear reference of a quote of Jesus. Why, if they are discussing the same topics as Jesus, would they not use him as their authority? Why did Jesus even need to teach on earth, if the apostles simply turn to other sources?

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?

Had the Incarnation ocurred, they would talk of Jesus, what else! How can God incarnate be walking on earth, and Paul not want to talk about it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Are you telling me you are not aware that there are huge areas of discussion about the historical core of Jesus? Was he really God? Did he rise from the dead? What parts of the gospels accurately record what he said and did? Why was the story not recorded until later? Why do subsequent writers simply copy Mark with minor edits instead of write what they know from other sources? How do you explain the similarity in teachings in Matthew and Luke that are not found elsewhere? Why is John so completely different from the other writers? You haven't begun to tell us what you think happened. That is fine, but you demand that others explain everything in minute detail. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why do you insist that other make a level of commitment to this discussion that you yourself refuse to do?

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?

Sir, you have a dispute with Doherty on this issue. I have told you where you can talk to Doherty directly about what he wrote. You absolutely refuse to ask Doherty your questions, don't you? If you question what he wrote, why are you so afraid to address your concerns to him?

Doherty explains the evidence that we have. See "The Mystery Cults and Christianity: Introduction and Survey of the Cults" . He is available for discussion at Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - Page 8 - FRDB .

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

Do you deny the existence of heaven? Do you deny life after death? Do you deny that angels do anything? Do you deny that there was war in heaven as Revelation taught? Do you deny that there was blood sprinkled in heaven as Hebrews taught?

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?

The epistles of the New Testament tell of God's offer of salvation.

For instance, Romans 3:

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
​

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.

Read post 204 again. I do talk about Peter. And if it makes you feel better, I wrote a new post just on Peter.

So you think every time someone mentions the kingdom of god or heaven they mean a magical place correct?

Gosh no. I didn't say that. I said that those 2 particular verses described a spiritual realm.

(And I don't know how much you know about Christianity, but many Christians would take offence at referring to heaven as a magical place as you do. "Magical place" is your words, not mine.)

Somebody once argued that all eskimos walk single file, for he saw two eskimos once and that's what they were doing. Your argument above based on two examples is basically the same argument.

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?

Q and Mark are about an earthly kingdom.

But Paul doesn't seem to be concerned about a kingdom on earth.

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.

Paul is trying to show salvation through Jesus. That is why he mentions Jesus.

I think it’s about following his example/spirit which leads to your death for sake of the kingdom.

Really? How can Romans 6 be about a future literal death for the kingdom? Here is the passage from Romans 6 again:

2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
7for he who has died is freed from sin.
8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
​

Where does this say anything about the sake of an earthly kingdom?

It talks about being baptized into his death--baptism represents the burial--and then being raised. It talks about the old self being crucified in the past tense. I see nothing here about following the spirit leading to a future literal death. Rather, it talks of a past figurative death in baptism leading to a new life.

How can you call other people literalists, and yet you try to interpret this figurative reference about death to be talking about a literal death?

The problem is that I don’t know what they are following or being a part of if he never existed on earth.

They are following the "Christ" they find in the scriptures per Paul's gospel.

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.

Are you truly not aware that many Christians think Jesus was the divine Son of God equal with God the Father?

Do you personally think Jesus was God incarnate? Do you think he was just a good man who sacrificed his life?

The god dying in heaven stuff is hard for me to get any understanding of.

What do you think Hebrews 9 teaches, if not a blood sacrifice in heaven?

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.

All in the pot. That's fine with me.

I have been saying I don't know where Paul thought Jesus had died.

What does it matter if Paul thought his story of a dying savior literally took place in heaven, or was all metaphorical for something that never happened? The point is that Paul seems to be describing a salvation that takes place in a realm other than that of recent human events. Whether Paul thought Jesus figuratively died in heaven, literally died in heaven, figurartively died on Mars, literally died on Mars, figuratively died in an alternate universe, literally died in another universe, etc. makes no difference to our discussion. If you are going to insist that I must pick one of those options, then you must tell me why it matters.

The mailing address of the mythical Jesus is irrelevant. If you are going to insist I need to pick a mailing address and fill in all the irrelevant details simply because you demand it, then I will insist that you fill in the irrelevant details that I will ask (such as how many disciples were left-handed, how tall they were, their shoe sizes, etc.)

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.

As I explained before, Mark taught that Jesus had foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and had promised that he would soon come back to set things straight. Jews who were downcast after the fall of Jerusalem could read Mark and understand that Jesus himself had foretold the fall of Jerusalem, that he had identified it with the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel, and that, therefore he was surely coming as the reigning Messiah soon, for Daniel had promised the Messiah would come shortly after the abomination of desolation.


If Jesus had known all this was coming, and had told them to hang in there until he sets it straight, then that could give people hope to hang in there until he comes and sets things right.

If people thought it was true, or even dreamed it could be, it would give them hope.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

People believed that Elvis was alive, even without their parents telling them.

I have read a story of people in Africa coming to believe a person had risen from the dead. Are you saying that therefore this person must have surely rose from the dead, for people would never have believe it happened unless it had really happened?

And what about the figure who was supposed to suffer from Isaiah? A person or deity?

According to Isaiah, the suffering servant is the nation of Israel. Many have used Midrash to turn Isaiah 53 into the story of a suffering Christ, but that was not the original intent of Isaiah.

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?

Huh? I just told you that the signs gospel was not morality teaching. Your response? "You think it was about morality precepts? Why?". That is the exact opposite of what I said!!!!!!!! Hello?

Why would you write the exact opposite of what I said and declare that I think this?

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?

Luke portrays his gospel as though it is history. He clearly wanted people to think it was history, even though he himself probably knew otherwise. It appears his book was interpreted as history.

How you interpret wisdom in proverbs.

Proverbs uses figurative language to talk of wisdom personified. If Proverbs can do that, why are folks here so very certain that later writers could not be using figurative language to talk about the Logos personified in the same sense as Proverbs did? Why insist that the Logos must be a literal person, and not accept that some people may have seen it metaphorically?

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.

Sir, I gave you the references in post #217, and you just blew right by them. When I repeat the issues that you ignored the first time, you ask for the references again.

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.

Paul says Jesus was crucified, but nowhere says it was on earth.

Here are the verses where the Pauline epistles use the word cross or crucified. Nowhere does he imply it happened on earth. BibleGateway.com - Keyword[bless and do not curse]Search: cross crucified

His images about Christ dying are loaded with figurative talk. He says he hijmself was crudified with Christ. He says the cross of Christ was that event whereby the world was crucified unto him, and he to the world. That sounds more like a spiritual event then something that happened on earth.

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.

How can Matthew stress salvation by deeds, after Paul has stressed salvation by faith?

How can Matthew say we need to keep the law, when Paul says we don't need to?

So Paul was a popular figure that they were capitalizing on? Popular with who, where, why?

Paul was popular with early Christians in Greece and Turkey. His movement may have faded after he died, but he came back strong when his books were combined with the gospels.

I’m not understanding why they needed his [Paul's] books or what ideas he had in there that were so important in understanding blood atonement.

I answered this before. Why do you keep on asking the same things?

The Pauline epistles teach salvation by the blood. ( Here are all verses in the Pauline epistles with the word "blood" . Some do not apply. See BibleGateway.com - Keyword[bless and do not curse]Search: blood ) Now where do you find any teaching close to that in the four gospels? If people believed in the blood atonement and used these books, then the Orthodox needed to include these books if they wanted to maintain that belief.

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.

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you."[b] 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. 23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
​

Who added Paul into the mix?

I have explained this several times to you. How many more times do I need to explain this to you?

Who asserted that Mark was historical and start the orthodox movement?

I have explained this several times to you. How many more times do I need to explain this to you?

When did the rewriting of history begin and end?

There was no clear beginning and ending.The fourth century church, especially Eusebius, wrote church history in a way that is not consistent with documents that have been found. Most likely much of this history was fabricated.

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?

One tradition says Paul was released from Rome and went to Spain. One says he was martyred while in Rome. Which one is correct? I don't know. Do you? Perhaps neither tradition is correct.

And I take it you are a skeptic of the martyrdoms in general then.

I think martyrdom in the first two centuries was exagerated. See The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002 .

Some point down the line some unknown church officials decide to create martyrdom tales for some of the early Christians?

Legends developed with time. It is not at all unusual that legends developed with time.

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?

The story of Stephen comes from Acts, which was probably written well into the second century.

I have no idea what happened historically in your mind or what ideology you are assuming of anyone back then.

Then read post #204, please.

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?

Yes, Doherty has done well on that board.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for "son-in-law," 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’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought".
So that deals with the claim of conflicting genealogies.

Huh? Luke 3:23 say, "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,". How can that verse possibly be saying that Heli was Mary's father? If that was what the writer intended to say, he could have easily made it clear. Can you see how some would think that this was a contrived explanation to explain away the problem that the genealogies differed? If Luke and Matthew disagree on the genealogy, must not at least one have been making it up?

Please show me one place where the Jews traced a kingly line through a woman. Isn't it special pleading to say that, in this case there must be an exception?

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.

OK, the phrase you are emphasizing means, "of the sperm"? Please tell me who's kingly seman was involved in this conception.

If you continue to insist that "seed" has to be literal, not metaphorical, and that "seed" literally means sperm, then you will need to tell me which descendent of David provided the sperm needed to make this literally the seed (sperm) of David.

Good luck!

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"

Yes, that is my point. Ancient Greek manuscripts did not have commas.

Is Paul preaching the gospel of God that was given by Jesus when he was on earth, or the gospel which God had promised through his prophets?

Paul seems to say it is the gsopel which God promised in the prophets.

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.

If you have other books that teach an earthly Jesus, Paul's writings can be interpreted to fit those books, but when you take this verse at face value, Paul is speaking of the gospel that came from the prophets.

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.

Midrash, my friend, midrash.

Did I not tell you how Paul completely reinterprets the Old Testament? He quotes the Old Testament and then throws interpretations on it that were not there in the original.

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.

Oh, please. Where exactly does the Old Testament say that a flesh and blood Jesus would die for our sins on earth?

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.

Interesting logic. By this logic, if someone claims they saw Elvis, the chances that he is wrong is 0.5. If 10 people say they saw Elvis, the chances they are all wrong is 1/2 to the 10th power, or 0.001.Therefore, according to your logic, Elvis lives.

Can you now see the flaw in such logic? The probability of your propositions is not 50%.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

No, Paul and Mark could have had much in common. Both Mark and Paul refer to Peter and the Jerusalem apostles, so they both had at least that possible source of tradition in common. Both had the scriptures. Both had common culture. Both had verbal influences from various sources and perhaps from each other. Both appear to be educated people that were aware of what was going on around them in the Roman empire. There were a lot of ideas that spread around during the Diaspora. So no, Paul and Mark were not completely isolated from their world with no way for common ideas to get back and forth.

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.

Yes, and you go on about this, but why? Of course there was common verbal tradition! Perhaps even common books that they both knew about. How does any of this prove that Paul was referring to the founder of Q, or that Mark knew about Paul's theology?
[/quote]

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.

Yes. There were a lot of common things shared around that culture. Even the Greeks taught many of the same things found in the New Testament. How does any of this relate to this thread?

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.

The Greek cynics also taught voluntary poverty. How does any of this prove that Paul was referring to the founder of Q, or that Mark knew about Paul's theology?

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.

Mithra was a god of the Persians and Greeks long before Mithras became a Roman god. Justin Martyr, for instance, claimed that Satan had created Mithras as a false religion in anticipation of the coming Christian religion.

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.

This is very different from passages like Mark 13 which "foretell" the coming fall of Jerusalem and an earthly reign of Christ. Paul is interested in getting the spirits of believers into heaven. Mark is interested in a triumphal reign here one earth.

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.

Yes, they both warned of false teachings.

In the Diaspora realm, many religions were being adopted, and so both of these men warned about false religions. And that leads to the conclusion that Paul thought Jesus was on earth? Interesting.

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.

There were many claims of miracles in that world. Why would not both mention the claims of miracles by other groups?

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

I agree that there were commonalities. Why should I read a book that argues this?

When everyone else reads the nonsense that you post in this thread, they find you to be equally bizarre.

Sir, why do you insult me?

Can you explain why you come on this forum and tell other people they are bizarre? I can understand calling an idea bizarre, but why do you call people bizarre?

If you are interested, I would love to share with you why I as a humanist want to lift people up rather than insult them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is no conflict between being a disciple and being an apostle. "Apostle" means messenger and disciple means "learner". There is no reason why a person can't be both. Indeed it makes obvious sense that those who learned from Jesus would be among those chosen to spread the message. It would be very strange if they weren't.

Sure they could be both disciples and apostles. But the epistles refer to them only as apostles, as an office appointed by God. There is no indication in the epistles that these men had been intimate acquaiantances of Jesus walking around as personal students or disciples. The gospels say that Jesus selected them as disciples, but the epistles refer only to apostles chosen by God, including Paul and Barnabas. There is no distinction made that some of the apostles were personal disciples of Jesus.

Paul does not say that "knowledge about Jesus comes from scripture and revelation". Instead he says specifically that knowledge about Jesus comes from those in the church. In 1 Cor 15:

For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I laboured even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed."
​

But where does Paul say he got the message that he preached from the church? Paul specifically says he did not get it from men.

So here Paul is clearly saying that the gospel Paul preached and labored for is the same one as the apostles in Jerusalem believed. This and a great many other passages indicate that Paul placed great emphasis on the specific teaching and traditions that were handed down from the Jerusalem apostles. For example in Gal 2:

"It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain."
​

So Paul believed that the gospel was only correct if the Jerusalem apostles approved of it. Paul's beliefs on this issue are very clear. Paul thought it was the apostles in Jerusalem, lead by Peter, who were the source of authority and correctness concerning what the gosepl is and who has the authority to preach it. So when you say that Paul believed that "knowledge about him comes from scripture and revelation", you are flat-out wrong.

I'm sorry, Galations 2 simply doesn't say that the Jerusalem apostles had such authority over Paul. Paul is telling them what he preaches, not asking them what he should preach. Paul goes on to condemn Peter for being wrong.

And in 2nd Corinthians Paul says that in no way is he behind Peter.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay, so we finally have some evidence for the supposed influence of the Cynics on Jesus's teachings. Unfortunately, as we'll see, your evidence doesn't stand up very well.

The cynic connection to Jesus has been well established. Previously I linked to a number of books about this.

You quote four individuals among the Pagans: Seneca, Musonius, Lucian, and Epictetus. Among these four, only Epictetus truly belongs among the Cynics. More importantly, it's highly unlikely that any of these individuals had any influence on Jesus because (guess what?) they lived after Him, not before him. Lucian and Epictetus are second century, so you can't make any argument there. Seneca the younger and Musonius were mid-to-late first century, making it highly unlikely that anything they said got to Jesus or to any new testament author.

You missed my point. My point is that the gospel writers were influenced by cynic teaching. I was not necessarily saying that they used these particular authors, only that these writings reflect the cynic teaching that the gospel writers used.

And Seneca probably died before any of the gospels were written, so his writings could have been an actual source.

In the case of Musonius we have none of his actual writing, only writings from later writers supposedly originating from him.

So?

In the case of Jesus we have none of his actual writing, only writings from later writers supposedly originating from him.

Are you saying that we have reason to doubt the words of Musonius and Jesus? Is that your point?

In case you haven't noticed, you seem to be cutting off the branch you are sitting on.

Timber!!!

In sum, I think you've once again copied down something that you found on the internet without first checking whether it's true or not. How often is this going to have to happen before you start considering that some of the things posted on the internet just aren't true?

No, the Jesus/Cynic connection had been known for a long time. I used the Internet as a quick verification of the point that had already been established by scholars. See the books I referenced before.

 

[AlexBP]

The cynic connection to Jesus has been well established. Previously I linked to a number of books about this.
...
No, the Jesus/Cynic connection had been known for a long time. I used the Internet as a quick verification of the point that had already been established by scholars. See the books I referenced before.

I strongly recommend that you and everyone else in this thread read the famous essay Politics and the English Language by George Orwell. In it Orwell mentions passive voice and how people often use it to weasel around thorny questions about how exactly is doing something. You say "the cynic connection to Jesus has been well established". Who exactly established it so well? Did the majority of honest, trustworthy scholars establish a connection between the Greek cynics and Jesus? Or did only a handful of crackpots establish such a connection? I hope you'll agree that it makes a big difference. You say "the Jesus/Cynic connection has been known for a long time." Who has known it for a long time? Is it the majority of persons doing serious work on the origins of Christianity, or just a few loonies who everyone else ignores? Again, it makes a difference. Is a fact established once somebody writes a book arguing for it? If so, I've already named many books that establish the existence of Jesus so I guess we can finally wrap up this thread.

Now on to your "see the books" line. I have recommended to you several books that you might read if you're truly interested in learning about Christian origins. The two best that I've found are Boyd and Eddy's Lord or Legend: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma and Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. It's obvious that you have not read these books or any of the others that I've suggested, since you're continually making statements that you'd know to be untrue if you had read them or any other reliable material on the topic. In addition, I've linked to shorter articles on various topics, and you've obviously ignored those as well. I on the other hand have been willing to wade through an enormous amount of material that you link to including all that tripe by Earl Doherty that I spent so long debunking. So I feel we're participating unevenly here. How can you demand that I read entire books while you're not even willing to read online articles?

In any case, the number of books you linked to on the article is two: This one and a book by James Dunn. If you were at all familiar with Dunn's work you would never have linked to a book by him. He is a defender of the reliability of the Bible and has a number of books dedicated to debunking many of the lies that you've tried to advance
in this thread. So now what about Cynics and Christian Origins? I'm afraid that I'm not going to spring for a copy because, though I've not taken a vow of poverty, nonetheless the price tag is a little hefty for me. So instead why don't we do this. You break open your copy of Cynics and Christian Origins, find the argument or arguments that you find most convincing for the case that the cynics had an influence on the New Testament, and post them here. Then I'll tell you whether I find them convincing.

However, I hope you'll forgive me if I say that I'm not convinced by what you've posted thus far. You've got four quotes from all of antiquity bearing a passing similarity to some quotes from the gospels. Most of your quotes don't even come from cynics and for half you can't even tell me what work they come from. Any two sufficiently large bodies of work will have a few lines that sound similar. We could surely find superficial similarities between sentences in Confucius or the Mahabarata and a sentences in some works from ancient Greece and Rome, yet that would not prove a relationship from one to the other.

In the case of Jesus we have none of his actual writing, only writings from later writers supposedly originating from him.

Are you saying that we have reason to doubt the words of Musonius and Jesus? Is that your point?

In case you haven't noticed, you seem to be cutting off the branch you are sitting on.

There are large differences between the amounts of material we have concerning Musonius and Jesus, the time elapsed between it being spoken and written down, and other facets affecting reliability. In any case I never argued for a "reason to doubt" recorded words of Musonius.

 

[AlexBP]

Mithra was a god of the Persians and Greeks long before Mithras became a Roman god.

I anticipated that you were going to provide this piece of incorrect information. That's why, more than a week ago, in this very thread, I posted the following paragraph.

First of all, in that article you linked to about the sacred meal of the Mithras Cult, I really don't see much similarity to the eucharist at all. Secondly, Paul and Mark could not have been "applying that tradition to Jesus" because no such tradition existed when Paul and Mark were alive. The Roman cult of Mithras did not exist until several generations later, nor did the other groups usually lumped together as "mystery religions". (Some people get confused because there was also a character named Mithras from Persian mythology several centuries earlier, but that shared nothing but the name with the Roman version.)

So, in this particular case, I had already debunked the claim before you even made it. Were you hoping that I wouldn't remember? Do you think that I suffer from short-term memory loss? If so, I'm afraid that I'll have to disappoint you by saying that I do not.

There was a character named Mithras in Persian mythology. There was none in Greek mythology, and I have no idea where you got that idea from. Around the year 100 A.D. the first traces of the Roman Mithras cult appeared. The Persian and Roman versions of Mithras do not have anything in common other than the name. If you want me to believe that both Paul and Mark got the idea for the Eucharist from the Mithras mythology, then let me issue you a simple challenge: can you name a single source (document, artwork, carving, whatever) documenting the existence of a sacred meal in Mithrasim and dating to before the writings of Paul and Mark?

Moreover, as I've repeatedly pointed out and you've ignored, there isn't actually any similarlity between the sacred meal of the Mithras cult and the eucharist. Both of them involved food and drink but that's where the similarity ends. All of this can be verified at the following well-documented article:

Mithraism. Not an influence on Christianity

However, since getting you to read articles is proving difficult, maybe you can instead be persuaded to take 4 minutes and 14 seconds to watch this video:

YouTube - The Mithra-buster

As I've said before, if you want to convince anybody, you'll have to stop believing everything that you read on the internet and start checking your information with credible sources.

 

[AlexBP]

Huh? Luke 3:23 say, "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,". How can that verse possibly be saying that Heli was Mary's father? If that was what the writer intended to say, he could have easily made it clear. Can you see how some would think that this was a contrived explanation to explain away the problem that the genealogies differed?

Go back to the post that you were responding to and you will see that I've already quoted from an article which specifically addresses this question.

If Luke and Matthew disagree on the genealogy, must not at least one have been making it up?

They do not disagree on the genealogy. Even if they did disagree on the genealogy, that would not bring you even a tiny bit closer to proving that your interpretation of Romans 1:1-4 is correct.

Isn't it special pleading to say that, in this case there must be an exception?

Now let me get this straight. You're the one who says that the phrase "according to the flesh" when used by Paul in Romans 1 is supposed to not actually mean "according to the flesh", but is instead intended to mean something metaphorical. You have admitted that you're not able to provide one single instance from anywhere which shows this phrase being used the way that you say it's being used here. And yet you accuse me of special pleading. I admire your sense of irony. It's you who's argument depends on special pleading, not me. Again, the genealogies of Luke and Matthew are a tangent with no real relevance to this discussion. But the core of your entire argument against the existence of Jesus depends on an absurd use of special pleading.

Paul seems to say it is the gsopel [sic] which God promised in the prophets.

The word "seems" is a wonderful device for anyone trying to do an end run around facts and logic. We have clashing interpretations of a phrase. Let's look at how it's interpreted by people who know what they're talking about.

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—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

Your interpretation of how this passage "seems" runs completely contrary to the interpretation of the experts who prepared these translations, and completely contrary to the interpretation of every single person on earth who's knowledgable about this topic, as far as I know. Given that, why should I prefer your interpretation over the common one? If this question seems familiar, it's because I've already asked it and you've failed to answer. Now I'm asking it again. By what authority do you claim to interpret what this passage "seems" to say in contrast to what everyone else sees that it simply does say? Here is an article which addresses the exact question that we're discussing; can you reply to it?

If you have other books that teach an earthly Jesus, Paul's writings can be interpreted to fit those books, but when you take this verse at face value, Paul is speaking of the gospel that came from the prophets.

Let me get this straight. Paul says that Jesus "was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh". And according to you this is "figurative terminology for a spirit being after the kingly tradition of David". And you say this despite having admitted that you cannot name one single instance in all ancient Jewish writing where this particular phrase was used as figurative terminology. Do you even know what "face value" means? If I say "Bob punched Joe", the face value interpretation of that is that Bob punched Joe. If someone else says that it's figurative terminology for something completely unrelated to Bob punching Joe, then they are not taking "Bob punched Joe" at face value. When you say that this verse seems to you to mean something, you can be truthful and we can only debate your interpretation. But when you say this verse at "face value" means something different than what it says, you're just wrong.

It is worth mentioning that this passage is not the only instance where Paul says that Jesus was related to someone on earth "according to the flesh". For example, in Romans 9, he says that, while refering to the Israelites, "from whom is Christ according to the flesh". It's almost as if Paul anticipated that somebody would try to make the argument you're making and decided to pack his epistles with a vast number of passages, any one of which would be more than sufficient to prove you wrong.

Lastly, we should not forget that the word "gospel" could not refer to just an interpretation of scripture, but instead could only refer to actual recent events. You haven't yet given any reason why I shouldn't view this as yet another of the many decisive pieces of evidence that Paul believed Jesus to be living on earth recently.

So, with all that said, let's get back to the main issue. The passage in question is Romans 1:1-4. Most everybody, regardless of their religion, viewpoint, or relevant academic knowledge, interprets it as meaning what it appears to say, namely that Paul believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ whose appearance was foretold in scripture, who was born a descendant of David, and who died and was resurrected bodily. You have an interpretation that's completely different. I'm asking you to provide a reason why I should prefer your interpretation over the mainstream one. Not repetition of your claims, mind you, but actual reasons.

 

[doubtingmerle]

See, for instance:

Amazon.com: Cynics and Christian Origins (9780567096135): Francis Gerald Downing: Books#_

and

footnote #70 on page 154 of Jesus remembered - Google Books

Alex, I wote this in response to your statement, "I've never heard anyone posit a link between the Cynics and Q before, and I'm afraid that I just don't see it."

So now you have seen where scholars have posited the connection. If you will click on the second link above and look at footnote #70 as the directions above say, you will find a list of scholarly works connecting the Cynics and Q. And yes, that book also quotes sources denying the link, and I believe the book itself denies the link.

The point is that scholars have indeed posited a link between Jesus and Q, and have presented scholarly reasons to believe it is so.

 

[doubtingmerle]

[FONT=&quot]I guess I need to clarify some then. That the sayings go back to someone historical is given but the actual historical core (for me) is the self sacrifice of the Jewish messiah claimant that his followers would later imitate. Any problems with that?[/FONT]

That is certainly a possilibilty, that a Jewish messiah claimant sacrificed himself. There were probably several messiah claimants who sacrificed themselves and probably several Jews named Jesus (a common name back then) who sacrificed themselves in the Jewish struggle against Rome in the first century. There may have even been a messiah claimant named Jesus who sacrificed himself.

The issue is whether Paul was referring to a particular messiah claimant in his writings.

Romans, 1 & 2 Cor, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thes., and Philemon, for instance.

All of those books have been tampered with by the Church. If you take the Jesus parts out what you have is a Jew trying to recruit gentiles into the movement by faith in God. If not that it could just be a made up figure to establish a line of apostleship for the Romans.

Interesting. So the writings of Paul have been tampered with, except for the parts of Paul that agree with you? How do you know it was not the other way around?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Regarding the Logos as viewed in the second century, here is a second century apologist as recorded in the link recommended by Alex (Early Christian Fathers | Christian Classics Ethereal Library ) Can you understand how this can be simply speaking of a personificaion of the word (Logos), and not be referring to a literal human being? Nowhere does this writer say he is speaking of a human Jesus.

I am not speaking of things that are strange to me, nor is my undertaking unreasonable, for I have been a disciple of apostles, and now I am becoming a teacher of the Gentiles. The things that pertain to the tradition I try to minister fittingly to those who are becoming disciples of the truth.  2Can any man who has been properly taught, and has come to love the Logos, keep from trying to learn precisely what has been shown openly by the Logos to those to whom he manifestly appeared and spoke in the plainest terms? He remained, indeed, unrecognized by unbelievers, but he gave a full explanation to his disciples who, because he looked upon them as faithful, came to know the mysteries of the Father.  3For this reason the Father sent the Logos to appear to the world—the Logos who was slighted by the chosen people, but preached by apostles and believed in by the Gentiles.  4This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared new and was found to be old, and is ever born young in the hearts of the saints where the theme is bound up with the real antiquity of the "New People" in the eternal purpose of God, and the gospel of the incarnate Logos is proclaimed as the "New Song."  5This is the eternal one, who today is accounted a Son, by whom the Church is made rich and grace is multiplied as it unfolds among the saints—the grace that gives understanding, makes mysteries plain, announces seasons, rejoices in believers, is given freely to seekers, that is, to such as do not break the pledges of their faith, 6Then the reverence taught by the Law is hymned, and the grace given to the Prophets is recognized, and the faith of the Gospels is made secure, and the tradition of the apostles is maintained, and the grace of the Church exults.  7And if you do not grieve this grace, you will understand what the Logos speaks, through whom he pleases and whenever he chooses.  8For we simply share with you, out of love for the things that have been revealed to us, everything that we have been prompted to speak out under stress, in obedience to the will and commandment of the Logos.
(Bold emphasis added.)
​

 

[doubtingmerle]

From here:
Fragments of Papias

"For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples"

Don't you find it interesting that Papias was asking what all the apostles said, as opposed to asking what the earthly Jesus had said? This is certainly consistent with the views that the Jerusalem apostles were a group that spoke of a mountaintop religious experience of a spiritual Jesus, as opposed to living and walking with Jesus on earth for 3 years.

Papias then gives a strange story about Judas:

"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."

Which is obvious legend, yes? You don't think that the body of Judas grew so big that he couldn't pass through a gap big enough for a chariot to get through do you? (If so, a good diet might have corrected the problem!)

So Eusebius and Papias seem to be passing on at least some legends that were not true, and this makes it difficult to believe everything they said.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All I can say is that I'd like to hope everything written about Jesus is indeed true based on all the death that has been caused because of that belief and because of the billions of people who have believed it. If it is all a hoax then wow, that has been one amazing cult.

And what about all the people who have died for other religions? Does the fact that, on 9/11, the hijackers willingly died for their faith prove that they were right?

It seems to me that many people are commited to religion to the point of being willing to die for it, and that this does not prove their religion is true.