Did Jesus Exist?

[AlexBP]

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.

Throughout this thread, you have been using variants of this argument, namely that if Paul's epistles don't include a specific reference to some specific aspect of the gospel narrative, then it serves as evidence that Paul was not aware of that aspect of the gospel narrative. But many posters in many posts have already explained to you ad nauseum why this is not a valid argument. It is entirely possible that Paul might have been aware that the eleven earliest apostles had been disciples of Jesus while Jesus was on earth, and yet not mentioned that fact in his letters, because his letters were not intended as an exhaustive history of everything that occurred during the lifetime of Jesus. At the time that Paul was writing those letters, the eleven in question were apostles and not disciples. As the letters deal largely with issues confronting the church at the time of writing, and not with the story of the historical Jesus, we would expect Paul to talk about them as apostles rather than as disciples. Similarly if you pick up a paper today you would expect to read about "President Barack Obama" as opposed to "Barack Obama, a student at Columbia University" or "Barack Obama, an employee of Business International Corporation". While many people certainly attach importance to Obama's education and early jobs as credentials for his current position, 99.9% of what is written about Obama today focuses on his political career and very little of it mentions the earlier things.

 

[AlexBP]

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

By phrasing the question like that it seems you already know that you're going to lose this debate. The issue dividing us here is this: we both agree that Paul believed Jesus Christ to be the messiah. I claim that if Paul believed this, then Paul must have believed that Jesus Christ was a flesh-and-blood human being. You say that Paul could have believed Jesus Christ was the messiah while also believing Jesus to be a spiritual being in Heaven only. So the question before us is, what did the Jews believe about the messiah. Did the messianic prophecies in the old Testament talk about a spiritual being in Heaven as the messiah, or did they talk about a flesh-and-blood human being on earth.

The answer is that they talked about a flesh-and-blood human being on earth. In fact the word "messiah" in Hebrew means a person annointed with oil, refering to a ceremony that took place on earth; it had no relationship to any heavenly or spiritual being. More importantly, a list of the messianic prophecies gives dozens of specific, earthly events that are expected in the messiah's life. (The link below contains a partial list of messianic prophecies, but there are many more.) Now given your habit of copying claims off anti-Christian websites, I can predict how you'll respond to this list. You will say that it's not clear these passages were not viewed as messianic prophecies before Christ's time, but instead the Christians came up with the idea of interpreting them that way afterwards. Well this is true for some of the passages in question, but most of these passages were viewed as messianic by the Jews before the time of Christ. On top of that, it is a simple historical fact that the Jews expected the messiah to be a flesh-and-blood human being. Can you show me a single piece of evidence that any Jewish group believed otherwise, during the first century or at any other time? You may find a few offshoots of Judaism in modern times that think that way, but there were none in ancient times. To the Jews, the messiah could only be a flesh-and-blood human being. Thus, if Paul believed Jesus Christ to be the messiah (and he did), then he also believed Jesus Christ to be a flesh-and-blood human being.

Messianic Prophecies

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.

Yes, you did tell me that. However, you were wrong and are wrong. You seem to think that by merely invoking the word "midrash", you can simply assign any figurative meaning that you want to any statement Paul made about the Old Testament scriptures. In this you're incorrect, because you don't understand what Midrash is. You've already acknowledged that you're not an expert on Jewish writing and thought in the relevant time period. Midrash, as I said already, is hard to pin down, and many scholarly careers have been spent entirely on applying midrash criticism to the New Testament. There's a vast volume of material out there if you want to make yourself informed. But the important point is this. The Jews were a historically-oriented people. They cared deeply about the past. And the reason why they cared about the past was because of their firm belief that God dealt consistently with Israel throughout history. Hence they believed that their past history contained a series of events, patterns, and types which told what Israel could expect in the present and future. You can see this pattern clearly throughout the Old Testament, non-canonical Jewish writings, and other sources. Again and again the writers say that because God did such-and-such (the Exodus, parting the Jordan, the life of David, &c...), therefore we Jews can expect such-and-such now and in the future.

Now what does this have to do with Paul? Well, when you complain about Paul "reinterpreting" Old Testament passages, Paul is really doing what many Jews of his time did, namely looking through past history for evidence of hos God would reveal Himself in present history. This did not mean that Paul had carte blanche to apply any Old Testament passages to a set of spiritual beings and events, though. That would be entirely outside the range of Midrash. Indeed, the fact that Paul wrote within the Midrash tradition servers as further proof that Paul believed himself to be talking about recent historical events. If you can find a single knowledgable person who believes otherwise, I'll be happy to look into them. But if you go your usual route of insisting thatg "many scholars" hold your viewpoint on the issue, please be ready to name actual names.

 

[ElijahW]

[FONT=&quot]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?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are confused about what I am asking. I’m asking what difficulty you have in understanding Christianity, as starting from a messiah claimant’s death. This isn’t about convincing a skeptic that the dead rose or was he God in the flesh. What you need to do is explain to me what difficulties you saw in a historical core becoming what we see today; that made you think a mythical origin was more likely.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The reason there is variance in the gospels is that they were written from slightly different perspectives of what was going on, at different times and influencing each other.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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?

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

[FONT=&quot] No I don’t have a dispute with Doherty. Doherty is pushing a theory he doesn’t have support for. There is no dispute going on. It’s a clear case of either you have the evidence or you don’t. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is no need me repeating what has already been said and is continuing to be said currently. I’m not going to get in the way of atheists putting Doherty in his place, just to repeat what everyone already knows. Everyone without a bias I mean.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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?

Yes, I believe in heaven, life after death and angels. But I don’t understand them as happening in a magical realm filled with beings that have wings and harps. I understand the concepts rationally; not taken from art literally.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Same goes with Revelations. You either try to understand it rationally or come away with nonsense. You don’t imagine things like blood literally being sprinkled in heaven. But you can believe in literally spilling your own blood establishes you spiritually. As we can see examples with more recent martyrs like MLK and Lincoln, who continue to live on spiritually in this nation now. A nation which isn’t defined by lines on a map but the ideals and spirit of our founders. (To try to illustrate the point further) You have to think rationally if you wish to understand spiritual concepts correctly. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

[FONT=&quot]For instance, Romans 3:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You really aren’t understanding that you can’t use Paul’s letters to support the ideology you are assuming with your interpretation. What individual wrote a treatise explaining what you think Paul believed so I can see what you believe is going on? NOT PAUL'S LETTERS!!!!!!!![/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you think Paul is all we have of anyone who thought the way you think he does, then just say so.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

I’ve read it and need way more clarification. Which post did you elaborate on Peter’s beliefs most recently you said?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

[FONT=&quot](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.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]No it doesn’t come from single example and thinking it applies to everything. It comes from you not distinguishing between the two different kinds of thinking in regards to the kingdom they were trying to establish, or get to.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So you recognize that kingdom of heaven and kingdom of god had understandings of establishing that on earth? And there were groups of Jews who thought that the kingdom of heaven was a magical place you go when you die to live with your loved ones? Are there labels you wish to use for the two groups for this conversation?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In regards to calling your understanding of heaven “magical”; Christianity is based on belief in the resurrection of the dead, not in an uneducated pagan’s understanding of the afterlife. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Q and Mark are about an earthly kingdom.

[FONT=&quot]But Paul doesn't seem to be concerned about a kingdom on earth.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And did you have an argument against Q being from a failed messiah claimant? How does Jesus help or signify the establishment of this kingdom to Mark and Q?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So Paul’s concern isn’t about Jesus and him helping with establishing a kingdom but about getting people to heaven where Jesus was actually crucified at because his blood opened up a door somehow to that realm? He doesn’t see any improvement to this world coming from Jesus being established as the messiah, or following his example? “Jesus” is just the secret password to get into the magical realm where the dead live?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Where do you think Peter fell? Was he with trying to fix the world or just get people into heaven with believing Jesus died in heaven?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

Yeah but what does he have to do with the salvation of mankind from your understanding of what is going on? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Really? How can Romans 6 be about a future literal death for the kingdom? Here is the passage from Romans 6 again:

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Where does this say anything about the sake of an earthly kingdom?[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]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?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is figurative there. That figurative description of their imitation of his death leads to an actual death. If you believed the accounts of their martyrdoms. How do you think they are trying to get to the point of the resurrection if not by establishing the kingdom of god?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] They are following the "Christ" they find in the scriptures per Paul's gospel.

[FONT=&quot] I get that you think this is the source but this doesn’t tell me the understanding they had of the messiah or salvation from the scripture.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

[FONT=&quot]Do you personally think Jesus was God incarnate? Do you think he was just a good man who sacrificed his life?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] The Logos incarnate. God’s Word in the flesh. Yes![/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Your anthropomorphic understanding of God in the flesh or having sex with Mary and making a super baby… No![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Are you truly not aware that many Christians think for themselves and use reason to understand scripture?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] The sacrifice of a man to help establish a spiritual temple for a community of people who recognized it and the priest as the authority, instead of king and kingdom.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

[FONT=&quot]I have been saying I don't know where Paul thought Jesus had died. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think if you are trying to present a case for a nonhistorical origin then having a basic understanding of the thinking that could lead to that would be necessary. I’ll leave it alone since you don’t seem to have any understanding of the thinking presented in Paul’s letters but would still like us to consider your interpretation of them.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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.

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If people thought it was true, or even dreamed it could be, it would give them hope.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So nothing about salvation for anyone, just the messiah came in the past predicted the fall of the temple so they would believe the messiah was still to come? No actual purpose to establishing Jesus as the Christ?[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[ElijahW]

[FONT=&quot]People believed that Elvis was alive, even without their parents telling them.

[FONT=&quot]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?[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That’s a silly question. I’m saying people get their faith from their parents and those around them in regards to Jesus being resurrected. The initial people who started the faith (just like Elvis) were people who couldn’t accept he had died.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you are trying to argue against a historical core then maybe you should use one of the standard myther examples, instead of a guy who was historical they thought was still alive after his supposed death. Particularly a work of fiction that was confused for a historical figure.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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.

Not to ask an overly stupid question but I can’t be sure. The nation of Israel isn’t to be understood as an anthropomorphic spirit living some place that can be beaten but figurative language describing the actual nation, correct?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So we don’t have an expectation of a failed messiah at the time of Jesus? We have people retrofitting scripture, that’s describing something else, as predicting the failed messiah, correct?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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?

[FONT=&quot]Why would you write the exact opposite of what I said and declare that I think this?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Because you said it didn’t mention many of his moral teachings so I assumed you thought it was a moral teacher. I asked if it was a messiah that the signs were identifying and you said no, correct? So what are we left with? Gnostic teacher?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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.

Ok, now that we know it was written as fiction; how did it get confused for history? When and how did this happen? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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?

Because the Logos exists in actual people. Every person of reason moves with the Logos. Yes it is possible to anthromorphisize spiritual elements in order to make points about what the writer feels is their nature and that is something to consider but what is being described is a particular personification of that spirit (reason). Not something like Thunder the Perfect Mind which is speaking for the spirit and has no historical/actual context.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What I was asking though; should you take that verse in Proverbs literally to show that God and spiritual elements should be understood anthromorphic and able to speak? The answer seems to be no. So do you have evidence to think that they thought there was a magical place where he could be crucified? The answer there now seems to be “no” as well. And now we are going to something figurative where he doesn’t die anywhere correct? It’s figurative for something else; you just don’t know what, correct?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is what you said.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 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 asked to see the scripture you are having problems with in response to the above and you think the answer is in the Doherty link you posted a paragraph from a few pages back .
[/FONT]<Cut to fit>
So you don’t have any problems of your own to discuss? Just want to throw up a list of talking points from a myther's website?

Have you figured out if you should be interpreting Paul as taking poetry literally or being philosophically minded? Is he speaking figuratively or about an actual spirit who was crucified in heaven? Either which one needs explaining on your part.

[FONT=&quot] Paul says Jesus was crucified, but nowhere says it was on earth.

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

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Do you still think it is possible for anthromorphic entities to be crucified in heaven or do you think it’s figurative for some unknown process going on?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

[FONT=&quot]How can Matthew say we need to keep the law, when Paul says we don't need to?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Everyone wasn’t in agreement and edited texts to fit their view point. Do you think Matthew came first?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Regardless if you think Jesus’ statement “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” is pro or anti-Pauline antinomianism, the text is after Paul introduced the idea. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 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.

[FONT=&quot] And by Christians you don’t mean how it’s commonly understood correct? There was a large movement of people who thought like Paul in Greece and Turkey? Is there a label you like to use or that they were known as, other than Christian?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

[FONT=&quot]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 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]BibleGateway.com - Keyword[bless and do not curse]Search: blood[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ) 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] You haven’t answered this to the best of my knowledge. Bible verses are of no use in making your point because you have such a unique and unexplained understanding of what is going on back then. I understand the blood atonement from the perspective of Orthodox Christianity and that is how the texts are going to read to me. What I don’t understand is your understanding of blood atonement you think Paul has going on. No idea what-so-ever. I’m not sure if you’ve put any thought into the thinking you are assuming of ancient thinkers like Paul.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

Until you state it clearly. I got so far, you think Paul was popular in Greece and Turkey with some unknown groups Who added Paul into the mix and how did they pull it off with followers already knowing his ideology in Greece and Turkey? I need something like: Before his date Paul was with this group, then after this date and these events Paul is now associated with orthodox Christianity… to start with.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

I don’t think you’ve explained it. I have no idea the groups involved or the time periods of turning Mark historical. It’s more of question of all the gospels now since you think that Luke and Mathew were written as fiction. John as well?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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.

So you have no idea how it was confused for history. Like you not understanding what is being described with a figurative crucifixion, or the beliefs of the people who started Christianity, I’m just going to move on and add this to the pile of things you can’t support about your theory/case. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So far your theory is completely empty of any plot for anyone to make any sense of. There is nothing to this theory to examine. Vaporware. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think martyrdom in the first two centuries was exagerated. See [FONT=&quot]The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002[/FONT][FONT=&quot] .[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Who said he died an oldman in Spain? If it’s from a non biased source then consider it. Does it matter if there was exaggeration of the martyrdoms when it comes to explaining how the movement stared around them?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

So it wasn’t part of a Roman Church conspiracy. It was just the legends that grow around people from oral tradition?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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

So at about what year do you put martyrdom as being part of the movement?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Then read post #204, please.

Answer post #215 in a way that actual explains what you think happened. But we have already come to the conclusion you don’t know what happened at any point and don’t know what anyone’s beliefs are right? You think that’s like trying to figure out their shoe size or something, correct?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][qutoe] Yes, Doherty has done well on that board.[/quote]Did you ever jump in and try to help him and show some support for his argument?[/FONT]

 

[ElijahW]

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.

Now that you have the possibility of a messiah claimant sacrificing himself, consider the impact it would have on his followers. Especially if he asked them to do the same. Now imagine the impact on non believers in seeing them imitate that sacrifice while talking about eternal life and the resurrection of the dead. Do you see how Christianity started from the historical perspective yet? Can you explain how it stared without that historical core to start the faith off? Can you explain how the faith starts from a story being confused for history and not a sacrifice?


What else could Paul be referring to? Can you give us another good option?

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?

I think I’m doing DCHindley’s theory there. I couldn’t find the actual post. Poe’s law. Maybe.

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.

If it was speaking of the Logos in general and not of it being “manifest” of “given as ransom”. Taken out of context it could be about the Logos in general and not the impact of its personification from an individual. What understanding of Logos are you working with there? It’s not an anthropomorphic entity, right? What is it then? Do you have problems understanding the Logos as being a spiritual entity that exists from the beginning and also personified in a historical individual?

 

[AlexBP]

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.

Okay, I originally said that I had never heard the thesis of a connection between Greek cynicism and Q. You've now pointed to some works about the topic. So I have now heard of the thesis, but I still don't agree with it.

Here's what you originally said:

Q concentrates only on sayings that resemble the Greek cynics.

To that I responded:

As I said, we don't know what was in Q, nor can we even be sure that Q existed at all. I find it a likely hypothesis but have limited patience with further speculation about what was in it or what was meant. 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.

The word "Cynic" as applied in ancient Greece didn't mean quite what it does today, although there's some relationship. The Greek Cynics basically believed in living according to nature. They believed that all social institutions were corrupt and turned people away from nature. They believed in mental freedom and disagreed with politicial rule, religious authority, and social structure. Some went in for a complete rejection of social norms to the point of dressing in rags and living in filth, though not all went that far.

Some of the "Q material" can be fitted into that mold without too much stretching. The speech on the conditions of discipleship would be one example. Some of the Q material has no relationship, such as the institution of the Great Supper. And much of the Q material is opposed to what the Cynics believed, such as numerous promises of eternal reward or the comissioning of the twelve.

So my objection to the thesis is plain, and you haven't answered it. Some of the Q material has a passing relationship to some of the things that the cynics believed, some has no relationship, and some is flatly opposed. Therefore I still need justification for your statement that Q concentrates only on sayings that resemble the Greek cynics. It's the 'only' that I'm objecting to.

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

Now you said in post #252:

The cynic connection to Jesus has been well established.

I responded in post #253:

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.

These still seem like legitimate questions to me. As I understand it, "established" means "proved"; if something is established then no reasonable person in the field disputes it. Has the connection between the cynics and Jesus actually reached that point? I don't think that it has. You can name a book plus a few other sources, fine. But recall what Cicero once said: "There is no position so stupid but some philosopher somewhere believes in it." That statement is even more true in our time, especially in the academy, especially in Bible study. The number of bible scholars is in the tens of thousands so it's no surprise that in a quest for something original to write about, some of them would choose far-fetched ideas. For me personally, I try to address this by focusing on mainstream scholars, while avoiding both fundamentalists who refuse to consider the existence of any inaccuracy and left-wingers who are strongly biased against accuracy. All the books and articles that I've recommend to you come from scholars in that category. Certainly it's not valid for you to say that the connection is "established" just because of a handful of sources. That's why I've asked you, and hereby ask you again, to break open your copy of Cynics and Christian Origins and tell me which particular points in the argument convinced you that this connection exists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hurtado also has a nice video discussion:
YouTube - LARRY HURTADO How did Jesus become a God

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

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

 

[AlexBP]

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.

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.

The life story of Paul is that first he persecuted the Christians, then on the road to Damascus Jesus Christ appeared to him and converted him, then he spent several days in Damascus with the Christians there, then escaped and went into hiding for three years, then to Jerusalem to study with Peter and the other apostles, then on his missionary journies, then after 14 years elapsed he went back to Jerusalem at which point the conflict between Paul and Peter occurred. So the Gospel that Jesus died and was resurrected, Paul claims to have by revelation, but at the same time he readily acknowledges receiving further knowledge about the life and teachings of Jesus from tradition. His use of the words "received" and "delivered" follows a traditional formula for the transmission of information from one person to another to another. All of this is discussed at great length in this article which makes abundantly clear that Paul was saying that received information from the apostles and passed on traditions, creeds, and so forth that he'd gotten from the church. If you are willing to read that article and respond to what it says, then I'll take seriously your claims about the sources of Paul's information.

 

[AlexBP]

Paul actually says in I Cor 2: 8

Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

​

Now which princes of this world is he referring to?This verse is commonly thought to refer to demonic princes behind the crucifixion.

How commonly? Exactly how many people do you know of who believe that 1 Cor 2:8 refers to "demonic princes" rather than the face-value understanding of "the rulers of this age"? Please give me names and also tell me what their credentials are.

I've heard the arguments for an early Acts. The later date makes more sense to me, and to many scholars.

Who exactly are these many scholars? Once again I want names.

 

[AlexBP]

MacDonald may point out some tenuous comparisons, but there are a wealth of similarities between Mark and Homer that have convinced many that Homer was an inspiration to Mark. (See Review by Richard Carrier of Dennis MacDonald's 'The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark' )

Well, as always with your use of the word "many", that brings up the question of who the "many" are. How many of these "many" can you name?

On the issue of the actual reliability of MacDonald's book, it looks like you've punted. You admit that much of what MacDonald says is "tenuous" but then insist that there are "a wealth of similarities" and link to a review by Richard Carrier, which proudly trumpets a lot of the issues that you have already admitted to be tenuous. So what exactly is not tenuous? What exactly is the convincing evidence that Mark copied Homer or was even familiar with Homer?

Let's look at the first specific points that Carrier brings up.

MacDonald points out how Mark is the harshest evangelist in his treatment of the disciples, while the others sometimes go out of their way to omit or alter this disparagement when they borrow from Mark. Why were the disciples such embarrassing nitwits, "greedy, cowardly, potentially treacherous, and above all foolish" (p. 20)? As history, it is hardly credible. As a play on Homer, it makes perfect sense: for the companions of Odysseus were exactly like this. Homer cleverly employed the ineptitudes of the crew to highlight the virtues of Odysseus, making him appear even more the hero, enhancing his "wisdom, courage, and self-control" (p. 23). MacDonald briefly explores five other general similarities between the two "entourages" in chapter 3, including the fact that in the one story we have sailors, while in the other, fishermen-who do a lot of going about in boats, even though the vast majority of Judaea is dry land.

But where exactly in the Gospel of Mark are all the disciples depicted as "greedy, cowardly, potentially treacherous, and above all foolish"? I can think of nothing that justifies Carrier's statement to that effect. And where exactly in the Odyssey does Homer say that the companions of Odysseus were "exactly like this"? Indeed, all of the companions of Odysseus in the Odyssey end up dead, rather different from what happens to the disciples in Mark. So this "similarity" is not a similarity at all. The treatments of the disciples in Mark and the companions of Odysseus have absolutely nothing in common. It is pure dishonesty on the part of MacDonald and Carrier to suggest that they do.

Next up:

Chief among these similarities is the comparison between Peter and Eurylochus. Both spoke on behalf of all the followers, both challenged the "doomsday predictions" of their master to their own peril, both were accused by their leader of being under the influence of an evil demon, and both "broke their vows to the hero in the face of suffering"-in effect, both "represent[ed] the craven attitude toward life" (p. 22-3).

Actually Eurylochus was never accused by his leader of being under the influence of an evil demon. That's another flat-out falsehood. Likewise, where in the Odysses would I go to find Eurylochus "challenging the doomsday predictions of his master"? I don't recall any such thing ever happening. This looks like another fiction on the part of Carrier and MacDonald. As for the idea that Peter "spoke on behalf of all the followers", I see little evidence that he did so consistently in Mark's gospel. For the few times that he did, it's only logical that in any group there's one person who sometimes speaks for all. You might as well draw similarities from the fact that Peter and Eurylochus both spoke with their mouths.

Both works begin by summoning their own Muse: Homer, the Muse herself; Mark, the Prophet Isaiah.

Where exactly does Mark "summon" the Prophet Isaiah?

both involve an inordinate amount of events and travel at sea

As I've already pointed out, Mark's "inordinate amount of events and travel at sea" is actually a couple short paragraphs on a lake. You seem to have accepted that this particular comparison is absurd, so I won't hammer on that point any further.

In both stories, the son's patrimony is confirmed by a god in the form of a bird, and this confirmation prepares the hero to face an enemy in the very next scene: Telemachus, the suitors; Jesus, Satan.

To draw any similarity between the scene of Odysseus confronting the suitors and Jesus being tempted by Satan strains credibility way past the breaking point. In the first scene, there a bloodbath that lasts for several pages. In the second, the devil offers Jesus three temptations and Jesus rejects them. Carrier thinks these are similar because they involved facing an enemy, but doesn't almost any scene in any narrative involve an enemy? You might as well say that there's an inescapable connection between the temptations of Jesus and Sherlock Holmes wrestling with Moriarity atop the waterfall. Those two scenes have a lot more similarity then the two that Carrier is talking about here.

Why do the chief priests need Judas to identify Jesus in order to arrest him? This makes absolutely no sense, since many of their number had debated him in person, and his face, after a triumphal entry and a violent tirade in the temple square, could hardly have been more public. But MacDonald's theory that Judas is a type of Melanthius solves this puzzle: Melanthius is the servant who betrays Odysseus and even fetches arms for the suitors to fight Odysseus-just as Judas brings armed guards to arrest Jesus-and since none of the suitors knew Odysseus, it required Melanthius to finally identify him. MacDonald also develops several points of comparison between the suitors and the Jewish authorities. Thus, this theme of "recognition" stayed in the story even at the cost of self-contradiction. Of note is the fact that Homer names Melanthius with a literary point in mind: for his name means "The Black One," whereas Mark seems to be maligning the Jews by associating Melanthius with Judas, whose name is simply "Judah," i.e. the kingdom of the Jews, after which the Jews as a people, and the region of Judaea, were named.

But what on earth does he mean when he says "Melanthius ... even fetches arms for the suitors to fight Odysseus-just as Odyssues brings armed guards to arrest Jesus"? Obviously bringing weapons is a different thing from being part of an angry mob. And Melanthius has a name meaning "the Black One" while Judas means "Judah". I'm afraid I don't see any similarity there. Besides those points, Melanthius and Judas are different in virtually every point. Judas was a disciple throughout, Melanthius a late arrival in the Odyssey. Judas is motivated by greed, Melanthius not. And so forth.

But if Barabbas is understood as the type of Irus, Odysseus' panhandling competitor in the hall of the suitors, the story makes sense as a clever fiction. Both Irus and Barabbas were scoundrels, both were competing with the story's hero for the attention of the enemy (the suitors in one case, the Jews in the other), and both are symbolic of the enemy's culpability.

The claim that both these characters were "scoundrels" is meaningless. That word is so vague that it could apply to any character who's viewed negatively. In specifics, there is absolutely nothing in common between Irus and Barabbas. And how is Barabbas "competing for the attention of the enemy"? As for "both are symbolic of the enemy's culpability", one could argue that any bad guy in any work is symbolic of the bad guys as a whole. That means nothing.

If you would like to read a thorough, point-by-point debukning of MacDonald's entire book, I recommend the following:

Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark -- a critical examination

However, I think the ball's in your court now. Do you still believe that MacDonald is an honest scholar and that there's anything meaningful in the claim that Mark was influenced by Homer? We've looked at the first seven specific claims in Carrier's review here and what do we see? Half of what MacDonald and Carrier say is flatly false. The other half is pointing out similarities so vague that they could be used to tie together almost any two works that you care to name. So if you want to defend this thesis, please tell me exactly what evidence you think to be convincing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Once again we are looking at the fragmented early church, the many gospels, the many Jesus's, the many Christs, the many apostles of the New Testament. Where did they all come from? How can this all originate from one Jesus? For instance:

2 Cor. 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. 5For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.
Gal. 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Mark 13:21"And then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ'; or, 'Behold, He is there'; do not believe him; 22 for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

2 Cor11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
​

We seem to see many Christs, apostles, gospels, and Jesus's arising out of a common background looking for an annointed savior. ("Christ" means annointed, "Jesus" means savior).

Okay, let's look at what we know about Apollos of Alexandria in detail.

First of all, we can throw out those quotes you mentioned from 2nd Corinthians. Those are utterly irrelevant and have nothing to do with Apollos of Alexandria. He is never even mentioned in that letter.

We don't know whom was the recipient of Pauls's ire in 2 Cor 11, but it may well have been the Apollos he disputes in 1 Corinthians. The point is that there were many people calling themselves apostles and teaching many different things. The picture of the church as presented in 1 Cor and 2 Cor is far from that of an organized body dedicated to one Jesus, one gospel, and one clearly defined set of apostles.

Now let's look at First Corinthians. Doherty argues, as you say, that in 1st Corinthians Paul condemns Apollos of Alexandria for teaching things close to what the people of Alexandria were known for. However, unfortunately for Doherty and you, Paul doesn't actually condemn Apollos for teachings similar to those associated with Alexandria, nor does the condemn Apollos for anything. In fact, if you read 1st Corinthians straightforwardly and without a prior determination to find evidence of a conflict between Apollos and Paul, you would come away with the impression that Paul viewed Apollos in a positive light. There's simply nothing there to suggest the conflict that you and Doherty want. Here's a list of the verses that mention Apollos. 1:12, 3:5-6, 4:6, 16:12 Nothing in any of those passages would suggest that Paul and Apollos were on anything but the best of terms.

We differ on this. I suggest that any interested reader look at 1 Cor 1-3 in the light of what Doherty says at Jesus Project Demise-Supplement 01.

 

[doubtingmerle]

During this response I’m going to have to assume that you understand correctly and think exactly like Doherty since you posted a link instead of speaking for yourself.

Isn't that a rather unusual asumption? Do you know any two people that think exactly alike?

It’s [Hebrews] distinguishing the difference between sacrifices that need to be done repeatedly and one that was better in that it only needed to be done once. And if you two were correct then we would expect to see an emphasis on a purely spiritual sacrifice instead of a onetime deal. There is a spiritual counterpart to the earthly during both sacrifices. It’s better promises that makes it a superior covenant. 8:6

Why does Hebrews 9:22-23 refer to the earthly sacrifices in a temple as a copy of the things in heaven? If the "things in heaven" refers simply to the self-sacrifice of a messiah claimant, how can the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament possibly be a copy of that? The detailed description of Old Testament blood sacrifices are very different from the idea of a man laying down his life for his friends.

And why does Hebrews 9:11-14 say that Christ entered into the heavenly tabernacle with his own blood "as a high priest"? You do remember what high priests did with blood when they entered the tabernacle, don't you? These verses look a whole lot more like a picture of a blood sacrifice, then praising a man for laying down his life for others.

See Hebrews 9 - Passage[bless and do not curse]Lookup - New American Standard Bible - BibleGateway.com.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So, after all that, are you still going to assert that "if you look at early second century Christian writings, the traditions of both Mark and Paul were marginal. Instead folks were talking about the Logos (Word) as a revealer of God"?

OK, that may have been a little strong.

Going into the second century, Paul's writings do indeed appear to have become marginal. His writing don't appear to be at the forefront until they pick up steam midway into the second century.

The historical Jesus movement per Mark gradually developed, and led to Matthew and Luke and Ignatius at the turn of the century. By 180 AD this movement dominates almost all of Christianity.

But before 180 AD, there was also a huge swath of Christianity, represented by the Gnostics and most of the Christian apologists, that emphasized the personified Logos and hidden wisdom rather than an historical Jesus.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

OK, what I should have said is that the evidence for a Jesus/Cynic connection has been known for a long time, and has been argued by many scholars. And yes, there are those who disagree.

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 Dilemmaand 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 haven't been ignoring your links. I've tried to click on all of them and read them as I have time.

If you haven't noticed, there has been an enormous amount of material directed at me on this thread. It sometimes takes me weeks to respond to something. I have only a limited amount of time to spend here. And yet, in spite of that, several people insist that I must respond to them personally immediately--or read and write an essay on their links immediately--and that I must direct my full attention to them right now. Does it never occur to people here that I might actually have a life, with a family and job, and that I am here only as a hobby? Did it never occur to you that I do not have unlimited time to read and respond to every link that you can find on the Internet?

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?

Oh, please, where did I ever demand that you read entire books? Pardon me, but can you please tell me where you are getting this stuff from? Can you see how some people might think you are just making this up? If I really made such a demand, please show me where.

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.

I don't have that book, and never claimed that I did. The only reason I linked to it was because you said you had never heard the claim of a Jesus/Cynic connection, so I showed you a sample of a book that made that claim. I was not demanding that you read that book, or claiming that I had read it.

My knowledge of the claimed Jesus/Cynic connection comes mainly from reading Crossan's The Historical Jesus many years ago. I no longer have that book.

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.

OK, we differ on this.

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

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

I have already responded to your quote from the Internet.

Let's look at the contradiction it is trying to explain away.
Matthew give one genealogy of Jesus:

Matthew 1:15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
​

But Luke says:

Luke 3: 23When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
​

Your source get around the contradiction by asserting a onetime special meaning for the words shown in red, saying that they really mean "the son-in-law of" in this one special instance. How convenient! Can you understand how this looks like a contrived explanation? After all, the word translated "son" clearly means son, and never means "son-in-law". Also Jewish tradition would never use Mary's genealogy at this point. And your response? You have a link on the Internet saying not to worry, its all good.

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.

What it shows is that genealogy might not have been held to the standard you claim. For if Luke--or his sources--can fabricate a false genealogy for Jesus, why could not somebody else refer to metaphorical seed of David?
And have you dropped the argument about seed? Previously you were insisting that "seed" can never be metaphorical, and that it always must be literal, and means the sperm. When I asked you whose sperm contributed to the immaculate conception, you seem to have suddenly dropped the demand that seed (sperm) needs to be literal, and changed to "descendents" instead. As I have previously shown you that "son of Abraham" can be a metaphorical expression, how are you so certain that "seed of David" cannot also be metaphorical?

The word "seems" is a wonderful device for anyone trying to do an end run around facts and logic.

I am not trying to do an end around with facts. I simply point out that this is what my senses determine. I think that is better than yelling from the housetops "you are wrong".

Which do you prefer? Should I tell you "it seems to me" that something is being taught here, or should I scream from the housetops, "I am right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong"?

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

You turn to the NCV as your source, a version written for children? See this scathing review of the NCV, ending with this summary:

We offer these criticisms somewhat reluctantly, because it is evident that the NCV was not designed to be used by adults for any serious study of the text. An attitude of kindly indulgence would seem to be more appropriate in dealing with a Bible designed for children. But unfortunately in these days it has become necessary to draw attention to shortcomings in such versions, because inflated claims of "accuracy" have become usual in the advertisements for them. The publisher of this version should not be making such claims, and should not be presenting this version as one suitable for adults. The version may be useful in teaching children, but it falls short in this regard also.
The New Century Version
​

Nevertheless you turn to the NCV and its phrase "as a man"?

Here is the original greek of that verse --http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=1&v=4&t=KJV#conc/3 . Now please tell me where this children's Bible got the phrase "as a man". Did they just make it up, and insert it in there so children would better understand traditional theology? How can anybody call that scholarship?

Now from the NIV:

Please show me where the phrase, "in his earthly life" comes from. You can see the original Greek at my link. Now please show me which words in the orignal were the source of this phrase. Again, if people are just inserting stuff into their versions to sell more Bibles, what does that have to do with scholarship?

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.

Experts? Were these "experts" you refer to committed to accuracy, or to giving people what they wanted so they could sell more Bibles?

I use the NASB, because it is generally accepted by evangelicals, and has a reasonable commitment to scholarly accuracy.

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?

So now you turn to the argument from authority? Why do I need to go find an authority to interpret the Bible for me? Why can't I just read the Bible and tell you what it says?

Here is an article which addresses the exact question that we're discussing; can you reply to it?

OK, I'll add this to my to do list.

you're just wrong.

Do you prefer I use this kind of dogmatic statement, as opposed to saying, "it seems to me"?

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.

Uh, if Paul wanted to make sure we understood he meant on earth with Paul's peers, he could have simply stated it. There is no question that Mark was protraying his Jesus as being on earth. Why would Paul drop in multiple poetic hints hoping that people catch on, rather than simply state it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

By phrasing the question like that it seems you already know that you're going to lose this debate. The issue dividing us here is this: we both agree that Paul believed Jesus Christ to be the messiah. I claim that if Paul believed this, then Paul must have believed that Jesus Christ was a flesh-and-blood human being. You say that Paul could have believed Jesus Christ was the messiah while also believing Jesus to be a spiritual being in Heaven only. So the question before us is, what did the Jews believe about the messiah. Did the messianic prophecies in the old Testament talk about a spiritual being in Heaven as the messiah, or did they talk about a flesh-and-blood human being on earth.

The word "Messiah" appears only in Daniel 9: 25-26 (in my version), and it refers to an annointed one to come 42 months after Antiocus Epiphanes desecrated the temple. Clearly that does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth.
The Hebrew word translated "Messiah" here is the word "mashiyach" which means "annointed" or "annointed one". It appears 39 times in the Old Testament. In none of these places does it specifically refer to Jesus of Nazareth. The priests are called mashiyach (messiah); King Saul is mashiyach. King David is mashiyach; King Cyrus of Persia is mashiyach. God's annointed "mashiyach" (messiah) can mean anybody that God annoints for his purposes. Nowhere does it say that God's annointed (mashiyach) needs to be a physical person. See Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

The answer is that they talked about a flesh-and-blood human being on earth. In fact the word "messiah" in Hebrew means a person annointed with oil, refering to a ceremony that took place on earth; it had no relationship to any heavenly or spiritual being.

How do you know it needs to be a person?

More importantly, a list of the messianic prophecies gives dozens of specific, earthly events that are expected in the messiah's life. (The link below contains a partial list of messianic prophecies, but there are many more.)

It appears that first century Jews must have put together lists of "prophecies" that they interpreted as referring to the messiah. Paul seems to have gotten his Jesus from such a list of "prophesies". He never says this Jesus he found in scriptures became a physical man and lived with his peers.

Now given your habit of copying claims off anti-Christian websites, I can predict how you'll respond to this list. You will say that it's not clear these passages were not viewed as messianic prophecies before Christ's time, but instead the Christians came up with the idea of interpreting them that way afterwards. Well this is true for some of the passages in question, but most of these passages were viewed as messianic by the Jews before hte time of Christ.

Buuuzzzz. Oh sorry, wrong answer. That's not what I say. See above.

On top of that, it is a simple historical fact that the Jews expected the messiah to be a flesh-and-blood human being. Can you show me a single piece of evidence that any Jewish group believed otherwise, during the first century or at any other time? You may find a few offshoots of Judaism in modern times that think that way, but there were none in ancient times. To the Jews, the messiah could only be a flesh-and-blood human being. Thus, if Paul believed Jesus Christ to be the messiah (and he did), then he also believed Jesus Christ to be a flesh-and-blood human being.

How do you know the Jews thought the Messiah had to be flesh and blood?

Messianic Prophecies

Ah, now this would make an interesting thread! Are you interested in looking at this topic together?

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.

Yes, you did tell me that. However, you were wrong and are wrong. You seem to think that by merely invoking the word "midrash", you can simply assign any figurative meaning that you want to any statement Paul made about the Old Testament scriptures.

No, that is not what I am saying.

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

 

[doubtingmerle]

What you need to do is explain to me what difficulties you saw in a historical core becoming what we see today; that made you think a mythical origin was more likely.

See the OP.

The reason there is variance in the gospels is that they were written from slightly different perspectives of what was going on, at different times and influencing each other.

How does that explain that the snyoptics all decide to use the same parentetical expression at the same time when they write? How does that explain that Matthew repeats 90% of the verses in Mark, often nearly word for word? How does that explain the almost total lack of coordination of John with the other gospels before the passion narrative? How does that explain anything?

Yes, I believe in heaven, life after death and angels. But I don&#8217;t understand them as happening in a magical realm filled with beings that have wings and harps. I understand the concepts rationally; not taken from art literally.

Which tells me nothing.

Do you think the New Testament writers refer to a literal heaven or a metaphorical heaven? Did they think life after death is literal or metaphorical? Did they think angels were literal or metaphorical?

What exactly do you believe?

Same goes with Revelations. You either try to understand it rationally or come away with nonsense. You don&#8217;t imagine things like blood literally being sprinkled in heaven.

So do you think the millenium is literal or metaphorical? Is hell literal or metaphorical?

What exactly is the "rational" interpretation of Revelations?

But you can believe in literally spilling your own blood establishes you spiritually. As we can see examples with more recent martyrs like MLK and Lincoln, who continue to live on spiritually in this nation now. A nation which isn&#8217;t defined by lines on a map but the ideals and spirit of our founders. (To try to illustrate the point further) You have to think rationally if you wish to understand spiritual concepts correctly.

Yes, MLK and Lincoln live on, metaphorically at least. Is that the way your Jesus lives on? Are you saying that the memory of him lives on? Or do you think he literally rose from the dead? If he literally rose from the dead, where exactly is he now, if there is no literal heaven?

You really aren&#8217;t understanding that you can&#8217;t use Paul&#8217;s letters to support the ideology you are assuming with your interpretation. What individual wrote a treatise explaining what you think Paul believed so I can see what you believe is going on? NOT PAUL'S LETTERS!!!!!!!!

You ask me what Paul taught. Why exactly can't I use Paul's own letters to show you what Paul taught? What better source is there to show you what Paul taught then to quote his own letters?

If you think Paul is all we have of anyone who thought the way you think he does, then just say so.

The books of Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians were probably written by somebody other than Paul but they share much of Paul's theology. Hebrews, I Peter, and 2 Peter are also close.

Which post did you elaborate on Peter&#8217;s beliefs most recently you said?

Post #243.

No it doesn&#8217;t come from single example and thinking it applies to everything. It comes from you not distinguishing between the two different kinds of thinking in regards to the kingdom they were trying to establish, or get to.

That's very odd you would say that. For in the very post you were replying to, I talk of both the spiritual and literal interpretations of the kingdom.

So you recognize that kingdom of heaven and kingdom of god had understandings of establishing that on earth? And there were groups of Jews who thought that the kingdom of heaven was a magical place you go when you die to live with your loved ones?

Do you think heaven in the Bible is only a metaphorical place? Is the entire concept of a literal heaven nothing more than magical thinking to you?

If heaven is not literal, where do you think God is?

In regards to calling your understanding of heaven "magical"; Christianity is based on belief in the resurrection of the dead, not in an uneducated pagan&#8217;s understanding of the afterlife.

And what exactly is your educated, non-pagan view of the afterlife?

And did you have an argument against Q being from a failed messiah claimant?

I don't see much in Q that indicates it comes from a Messiah claimant.

How does Jesus help or signify the establishment of this kingdom to Mark and Q?

In many places the Jesus of the synoptics refers to the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven, probably referring to a kingdom on earth.

So Paul&#8217;s concern isn&#8217;t about Jesus and him helping with establishing a kingdom but about getting people to heaven where Jesus was actually crucified at because his blood opened up a door somehow to that realm?

Yes, I think that is what Paul is saying, except Paul isn't specific about the location of the crucifixion.

He doesn&#8217;t see any improvement to this world coming from Jesus being established as the messiah, or following his example?

That's not his emphasis. His emphasis is personal redemption.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
​

According to Paul, the earth is waiting anxiously for the resurrection of Christians.

It is figurative there. That figurative description of their imitation of his death leads to an actual death. If you believed the accounts of their martyrdoms.

It's getting to the point where I need to ask you if you mean literal or metaphorical almost every time you use a noun or verb from the Bible. Much of the Bible appears to be metaphor in your view.

How do you think they are trying to get to the point of the resurrection if not by establishing he kingdom of god?

By personal salvation that leads to a resurected life in heaven.

So nothing about salvation for anyone, just the messiah came in the past predicted the fall of the temple so they would believe the messiah was still to come? No actual purpose to establishing Jesus as the Christ?

I think Mark's gospel intended to portray Jesus as the Christ.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I&#8217;m saying people get their faith from their parents and those around them in regards to Jesus being resurrected.

And if they had different parents with a different faith, they would believe something else?

If your faith is based on what your parents told you, and different parents teach different things, how do you know your parents told you the right things?

Not to ask an overly stupid question but I can&#8217;t be sure. The nation of Israel isn&#8217;t to be understood as an anthropomorphic spirit living some place that can be beaten but figurative language describing the actual nation, correct?

Thanks for asking that "overly stupid question". I'm stilling trying to figure out what it means. I too can make stupid questions: Why for trucks if faster becoming cute wherefore when certainly trees dog breath and so forth?

Ok, your question may be more nonsense than mine, but at least I tried!

So we don&#8217;t have an expectation of a failed messiah at the time of Jesus?

No, I don't think they thought the messiah would fail.

Ok, now that we know it was written as fiction; how did it get confused for history?

I think the gospels were intended to be viewed as history, even though the writers probably knew that at least much of the content was not true. They may have justified this because they were giving hope, just like parents tell stories of Santa Claus that they know aren't really true.

So you don&#8217;t have any problems of your own to discuss? Just want to throw up a list of talking points from a myther's website?

Yes, I have problems of my own.

Would you like to discuss my bunions?

Have you figured out if you should be interpreting Paul as taking poetry literally or being philosophically minded?

Would you like to elaborate on why we should interpret Paul one way or the other?

Everyone wasn&#8217;t in agreement and edited texts to fit their view point. Do you think Matthew came first?

Read the OP.

Regardless if you think Jesus&#8217; statement "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." is pro or anti-Pauline antinomianism, the text is after Paul introduced the idea.

Matthew says we need to follow everthing the Pharisees teach, for they teach the law of Moses. Paul disagrees.

There was a large movement of people who thought like Paul in Greece and Turkey?

Maybe several thousand, I don't know.

I understand the blood atonement from the perspective of Orthodox Christianity and that is how the texts are going to read to me.

Oh, this should be interesting. What do you think Orthodox Christianity teaches about the blood atonement?

I need something like: Before his date Paul was with this group, then after this date and these events Paul is now associated with orthodox Christianity&#8230; to start with.

Two can play that game. I need the date when the first person described the deity as a trinity, and when the first person declared that Jesus was in the beginning with God. (I don't need the hour, just the year, month and date, please. Thank you.)

So far your theory is completely empty of any plot for anyone to make any sense of. There is nothing to this theory to examine. Vaporware.

Then read post #204.

By comparison, we have nothing but evasions about your unusual Christian views. Do you care to share what you think actually happened in first century Christianity?

Does it matter if there was exaggeration of the martyrdoms when it comes to explaining how the movement stared around them?

Yes, truth matters.

So at about what year do you put martyrdom as being part of the movement?

There was probably some martyrdom early, but the great waves of martyrdom didn't occur until the 3rd century.

Answer post #215 in a way that actual explains what you think happened.

See post #216.

But we have already come to the conclusion you don&#8217;t know what happened at any point and don&#8217;t know what anyone&#8217;s beliefs are right?

We have?

Yes, Doherty has done well on that board.

Did you ever jump in and try to help him and show some support for his argument?

yes

You missed the point. I have actively asked for experts on Christianity to debate me. I have come here looking for those who understand Christianity. I would gladly accept a debate here with any Christian writer who has written a book defending the faith.

But you have a dispute on Doherty's views of Greek mythology. And yet you refuse to discuss it with the man who wrote the book.

Can you see the difference?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay, I originally said that I had never heard the thesis of a connection between Greek cynicism and Q. You've now pointed to some works about the topic. So I have now heard of the thesis, but I still don't agree with it.

OK, let's agree to diagree then.

Here's what you originally said:
Q concentrates only on sayings that resemble the Greek cynics.

OK, I should have worded it, "Q concentrates on sayings. These sayings often resemble the Greek Cynics."

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

Then take it up with the author of Acts please. Twice the book of Acts refers to Hellenized Jews, that is, to Jews who were stronly influenced by Greek thought.

See also Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Yes, of course, there may have been some Jews that stubbornly refused to talk to their new
Greek neighbors, but some did talk, and eventually ideas spread throughout the world.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The life story of Paul is that first he persecuted the Christians,

I don't consider Acts to be historical (and yes, I've seen your link saying it is). The only record that we have of Paul persecuting the Christians other than in Acts is Galations 1 where Paul says he presecuted (Greek dioko) the Christians. If you look up that Greek word, you see that it has to do with harrassing or mistreating. It definately does not prove that Paul went about killing Christians, only that he dispute Peter and the others that claimed the mountaintop experience of "Christ". See Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon.

then on the road to Damascus Jesus Christ appeared to him and converted him, then he spent several days in Damascus with the Christians there, then escaped and went into hiding for three years, then to Jerusalem to study with Peter and the other apostles, then on his missionary journies, then after 14 years elapsed he went back to Jerusalem at which point the conflict between Paul and Peter occurred.

Here Paul, in the book of Galations disagrees with Acts. Paul denies that he spent any time talking with other Christians before he went into hiding for 3 years and emerged with "the gospel that was preached by me".

So the Gospel that Jesus died and was resurrected, Paul claims to have by revelation, but at the same time he readily acknowledges receiving further knowledge about the life and teachings of Jesus from tradition. His use of the words "received" and "delivered" follows a traditional formula for the transmission of information from one person to another to another.

That is a vague way of saying that he received it from the disciples. Actually, he seems to be claiming that he received his gospel from scripture.

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1Cr 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
​

Is he preaching what he knows about Jesus according to what Peter and James told him, or according to what the scriptures told him?

All of this is discussed at great length

in this article which makes abundantly clear that Paul was saying that received information from the apostles and passed on traditions, creeds, and so forth that he'd gotten from the church. If you are willing to read that article and respond to what it says, then I'll take seriously your claims about the sources of Paul's information.

OK, I'll put that on my to do list.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Why would Paul drop in multiple poetic hints hoping that people catch on, rather than simply state it?

Because Paul was a Jew, and that's how Jews wrote. Jews didn't write fact sheets for academic dissection, thought wrote in a poetic and metaphoric form that the Hebrew people would actually understand instead of just intellectually 'know'.