Did Jesus Exist?

[razeontherock]

But before 70 AD the Christians likely had none of the gospels or Acts. And before 90 AD, they possibly had only one gospel, Mark.

When we look at only those documents written before 70 AD, what picture do we get of Jesus?

It seems to me nobody addressed the question you asked me, which is why did Paul state that he lacked nothing or was not behind the chiefest of the Apostles?

You need to exercise hermeneutics to understand that passage. IIRC, Paul's credibility was under attack. He withstood "the pillars of the Church" to their face, because they were wrong. And a "Church council" vindicated Paul.

That qualifies And it has nothing to do with Jesus living on earth as a man, which ties in DIRECTLY to your quote that I snipped here:

when NT Scripture was written is IRRELEVANT. The Gospels were taught, and the Epistles were added as written, and only circulated among the Churches later. I know you don't like that, but such are facts.

 

[razeontherock]

[/SIZE][/FONT]Romans, 1 & 2 Corithians, Galations, Philipians, 1 Thes., Philemon, Hebrews, and James, for instance, are not far off.

Where do any of these say that the incarnate God walked on earth among their peers? Where does any reference the earthly Jesus in a direct quote? Where are the storys of the miracles? Where is the story of the trial before Pilate and the story of the crucifixion? Where are the references to Joseph, Mary, Judas, Mary Magdalene, or Joseph of Aramathea? Where is the reference to Pentecost? Weren't these things the talk of the town?

Objection: asked and answered, in my first post on this thread. On the first page.

 

[razeontherock]

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

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

 

[AlexBP]

Now there seems to be an argument that the lead codices are a hoax:

https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/peter-thonemann-on-the-lead-codices/

If it's accurate, too bad.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Yeah, it's a hoax. I figured that out when a link on the page took me to Just Biebers wiki page.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay, let's go back to the beginning on this one.

Still going strong, huh?

Several times I asked you if we couldn't just agree to disagree. Apparently not.

Onward.

In the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul describes the supper that Jesus ate on his last night before death, which included the institution of the eucharist, with details and quotes. All four of the gospels contain the same episode. This shows that both Paul and the gospelers must have been aware of a common source telling them about when and how Jesus instituted the eucharist. The most simple and common sense interpretation is that the common source is Jesus himself. Paul learned about Jesus' last supper from the apostles at Jerusalem while he was learning about the gospel from them, and the gospelers either witnessed it or learned about it from their sources.

The common source may well have been the Jerusalem apostles, as I mentioned in post #243. We don't know a lot about the Jerusalem apostles, but we do know that Peter, James and John show up in both the writings of Paul and Mark. Possibly they instituted a eucharist ritual, and possibly this ritual was based on Greek savior myth cults. This did not need to begin with a historical Jesus. It could have been a common belief in a cosmic Christ.

So the third reason is lack of any similarity between the eucharist and any tradition in the Mithras cult.

And yet you have provided this quote from Justin Martyr, which shows there is indeed a similarity:

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (emphasis added)
​

So Justin says the cult of Mithras was "commanding the same thing" concerning eating of the body and blood. Justin credits devils with creating the Mithras ritual just like the Christian ritual. That sounds like they were very similar to me.

The fourth reason is that even to the extent that the Mithras cult practiced a "sacred meal", they only started doing so after both Paul and Mark had written their works. If either of these claims is true, then your explanation can be ruled out.

Which came first? Both may have come from a common culture, or both may have come from a particular common source, or one religion or the other may have copied the other.

Any of those explanations is more probable to me than that God incarnate called bread his body and then asked people to eat it, and that others were following a perversion taught by the devil himself.

We do know that the Mithras cult appears roughly in the time frame of the spread of Christianity in the first 2 centuries. Justin refers to it in the middle of the second century, and we have early Mithras artefacts, although we cannot date exactly when the Mithras meal began.

So in short the attempt to find a duplicate of the eucharist in the Mithraic cult is an outright lie.

So it is not enough for you to say that we differ on an issue of history?

Instead you need to insist that those who differ with you are outright lying?

Can you understand how such language is not conducive to civil debates? Why not give people the benefit of the doubt? Even if they disagree with you, that does not mean they are deliberately lying.

You say that you won't read a page by Robert Turkel and justify it with a link to somebody bashing him. Well, I will read him, particulary since he has footnotes and bibliographies which back up his arguments with real, scholarly works. (Things which most of your sources sorely lack.) Anybody can bash anybody on the internet and anyone who gets enough publicity gets bashed my somebody. Unless you have some specific reason to not believe the particular rebuttals Turkel makes in his article about Mithras, I seen no reason to doubt the articles conclusions.

I have seen these long debates with Turkel for years. That is why I was surprised to see you bring him up. The link I sent was just a confirmation of what I had already observed.

So now I will need to read Turkel's endless distortions and reply to all of his writings also?

 

[doubtingmerle]

As the website mentions, the language had no word meaning 'son in law' and there are existing examples of refering to a son in law as a son.

Can you please give me an example of a geneaolgy of a king, in which the Greek word son is used to mean son-in-law?

Though they had no word for son-in-law, but they did have a word for "Mary"! It would have been very easy to say Jesus was the son of Mary who was the son of Heli. That would have cleared up a lot of confusion. Instead folks need to come up with the contrived explanation that in this one special case, the word son means son-in-law.

David had children. They were his "seed', or as those of the time would be sure to interpret it they came from his sperm. But all who were descendants from those children would be considered his "seed" as well whether male or female, and whether the entire line of descent from David was male or not. This is how the term was understood.

And in Galations Paul refers to the seed of Abraham, which in the original context meant many descendents, but Paul uses it to mean Christ only. If Paul can completely rip this verse about seed out of context, and assign it a metaphorical meaning that has nothing to do with the original, why could not he be doing something similar in Romans?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your focus on the word "man" may not be such a good idea, since Paul refers to Jesus as a "man" many times.

Many times? Really? I can only find 2 instances.(Rom 5:15, Phil 2:8)

I once had a debate on the trinity, and asked if my opponent believed that the godhead consisted of three beings. "Not so", came the reply, "God is not three beings, he is three persons"! Really? God is three persons? Don't you really mean three beings? "Heresy!", screamed the angry reply. I still cannot understand how three persons is the absolute truth in his mind, but three beings is heresy. But I digress.

Sometimes people use anthropomorphic representations of the divinity metaphorically.

Your complaints about the NCV and the NIV missed the point. The point is that there are two competing interpretations of Romans 1:1-3, your interpretation and my interpretation, and that every expert on the language and thought of the time agrees with my interpretation and disagrees with yours.

Doherty has a degree in ancient languages (Greek and Latin), and years of study, and he disagrees.

For example since you've endorsed the NASB as having a "reasonable commitment to scholarly accuracy", let's see how it translates the passage in question.

Paul a bond-servant of Christ Jesus called as an apostle set apart for the gospel of God which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
​

(I took the liberty of removing the commas which we agree were not in the original.)

What gospel is Paul called to? He says it is the one that was promised in the scriptures about God's Son. He does not say it is the one that recently happened on earth.

What does Paul learn from the scriptures about this son? Among other things, this Son was described as being a descendent of David. This could simply be a reference to a heavenly son being metaphorically born as David's heir in the metaphorical realm of flesh.

I don't believe the phrase "born of a descendant of David" in the NASB is supported by the Greek text. The original said the "seed of David".
By the way, Strong's Concordance offers the following outline of Biblical usage of the Greek word "sperma" (seed).

1) from which a plant germinates
a) the seed i.e. the grain or kernel which contains within itself the germ of the future plants
1) of the grains or kernels sown
b) metaph. a seed i.e. a residue, or a few survivors reserved as the germ of the next generation (just as seed is kept from the harvest for the sowing)
2) the sperm virile
a) the product of this sperm, seed, children, offspring, progeny
b) family, tribe, posterity
c) whatever possesses vital force or life giving power
1) of divine energy of the Holy Spirit operating within the soul by which we are regenerated
​

(Bold emphasis was added.)

So yes, the word seed (sperma) can sometimes be used metaphorically.

In fact the mere reference to a person as the sperma of David is in itself metaphorical, for it literally mean the "plant's seed of David".

So what are you going to do now? Are you going to acknowledge that you were wrong? Or are you going to change your mind and decide that you won't use the NASB in this particular case despite its commitment to scholarly accuracy?

I may be wrong. I frequently am. I have acknowledged several mistakes on this thread. And there are legitimate arguments that can be made both ways on the mythical Jesus.

Romans 1 may describe Jesus as a physical descendent, in spite of all the evidence that Paul thought otherwise, but I doubt it. As I explained to you before, ancestry is sometimes metaphorical. For instance:

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

So why can not these verses mean that Paul interpreted the Bible as saying that God's son would metaphorically be David's heir? Why must everything be literal?

The Greek says "ho ginomai ek sperma Dabid kata sarx". Now there are different approaches to translating the Bible. Some translations prefer a direct word-for-word approach, where every single Greek word gets translated to an English word or phrases in the same order. If we take that approach we get something like "who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh". Other translations take a more holistic approach in which they are willing to rearrange words and phrases and translated turns of phrase in modern syntax rather than sticking with the strict word-for-word meaning. The NIV follows this approach and gives us: "who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David".

OK, so we agree that the words "earthly" and "life" did not appear in the original, but the translators used them because they thought these words meant the same thing as "according to the flesh"? How did they make that decision? Does it not come from the fact that, in their theology, they thought that Jesus had lived a life on earth? If everybody in the world thought that Jesus had lived on Mars, would they then have translated this as "in his Martian life"? Simply taking one's theology and throwing it into the text does not prove that the text meant what the inserted words say.

Saying that something happened "according to the flesh" meant exactly the same as saying that it happened in an earthly life. So now you know which words in the original were the source of this phrase.

Uh, no, "kata sarx" can have several meaning, including "in the realm of the flesh", or "in his life on Mars as a space traveler".

Pardon me for asking, but what on earth are you talking about when you mention "to sell more Bibles"? Do you have any reason to believe that the NIV would have sold a single copy more or less if it had translated Romans 1:3 the same way that the NASB did? Do you any justification for implying that they chose the words they did with an eye towards "selling Bibles"? If not, then why did you say this?

If a version includes wordings that are regarded as heresy by their intended audience, will their intended audience buy their work? If translators want to get paid, then they need to produce Bibles that their audience will want. And if their audience is supremely interested in doctrinal integrity, then translators that want to get paid have a bias to give them what they want.

The introduction to the NIV says that it is commited to a particular ideology. It appears that in some places their desire to maintain that ideology takes precedence over accuracy.

You free to read the Bible and tell me what it says, and if you make incorrect statements then I'm free to point out that you're making incorrect statements.

Yes, of course. But you insisted on hashing the same points over again after I offered several times that we could just agree to disagree.
Why not just say that we each have made our point, and ask the reader to make his own decision?

In this particular case, I have given reasons why my interpretation of Romans 1:3 is correct. You have, on multiple occasions, ignored requests for reasons why your interpretation should be viewed as correct. To reiterate, my reasons are as follows: (1) common sense (2) agreement of all scholars without exception (3) fact that the phrase in question was never used metaphorically (4) fact that it would contradict Jewish theology about the Messiah unless the phrase was used literally (5) fact that Paul mentioned the earthly life of Jesus on many other occasions. Again, this article will back up what I say and provide additional reasons why I'm right and you're wrong. So now that I've stated my reasons (ad nauseum) for my positions, why don't you for the first time give us a reason for your position?

And so on, and so on, and so on.

I have given my reasons. You have given your reasons. The reader can look at both sides, and decide for herself.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay merle, I'll answer that question in a minute. But first of all, let me point back to a question that I asked you. In post #262 I asked this: "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?" Why did you not answer my question? Why are you instead trying to put the burden of proof upon me? My question was a straightforward yes-no question and I don't see why you couldn't give it a straightforward yes-no answer. I rather suspect that the reason why you refused to answer is that your answer would have to be 'no'. Of course, if your answer is 'yes' then you're welcome to provide the evidence for it.

Yes.

The writings of the epistles seem to indicate a Christ that did not live on earth.

Now if, on top of that, I wanted more evidence of what Jewish beliefs about the Messiah were during the first century I have plenty of other sources. I could look to Josephus and see what he wrote about messianic beliefs and messianic pretenders. I could look to pagan historians such as Tacitus who discussed it somewhat. I could look to Philo of Alexandria and note that even though he broke ground in putting metaphorical and spiritual interpretations on many Old Testament passages, he nonetheless believed in the messiah as a descendant of David. I could even point out that Maimonides, writing in the Middle Ages, listed belief in an earthly messiah as one of the key tenets that all Jews had to follow. I could point to the Talmud, which says a great deal about the messiah and all of it simply assuming a descendant of David. So there's no shortage of evidence that first-century Jews believed the messiah could only be a physical human descended from David.

Here is what the Hebrew Bible actually says about the Messiah. The Hebrew word is mashiyach, and it is frequently translated annointed. Since you insist on using the word "messiah" instead of "annointed" let's substitute the word messiah where the translations say annointed, to match your language.

Lev 4:3 if the messiah priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.

1Sa 26:9 And David said to Abishai, Destroy him [Saul] not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD'S messiah, and be guiltless?

Isa 45:1 Thus says the LORD to Cyrus His messiah, Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue nations before him And to loose the loins of kings; To open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:
​

OK, these are some of the places where the Hebrew word for messiah appears. None of those refer to Jesus of Nazareth.

Now where exactly is your reference that states that the messiah (Hebrew mashiyach) can only be of the literal seed of David?

It appears that first century Jews must have put together lists of "prophecies" that they interpreted as referring to the messiah.

Can I see such a list or do I just have to take your word on its existence?

No, of course not, but the common usage of passages such as Isaiah 53 by multiple people, even though the original said nothing about a future messiah, indicates that something like this was put together, either in writing or in verbal tradition.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Sir the only way you can possibly know that no Jew was ever influenced by a Greek person on matters of religion in the first century is to personally interview every Jew from that century. I have asked you before, have you done that? If one has not done that, how can he possibly insist that he knows with absolute certainty that no Jew of the diaspora was ever influenced in religion by a Greek neighbor?

Where cultures mix ideas mix. That has been proven many times.

The fact that Paul and his followers were living in the Diaspora is strong evidence that they could have been influenced by others, even if the Jewish leaders were not.

And Paul's audience was not primarily Jews who adopted Greek religion, but gentiles who adopted Jewish scriptures. So for your theory to be true, you must not only prove that every single Jew never had any religious influence from a gentile neighbor, but also that every single gentile never had any influence in religion from his Jewish neighbor.

Good luck.

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

Uh, sir, I made reference to a number of books that document the link between Greek thought and early Christianity. Did you forget about that?

 

[doubtingmerle]

To me it looks like it would fit perfectly with the understand displayed in John's Gospel, namely that the Son--also knows as the Logos--has existed with the Father since the beginning, and became present on earth as Jesus Christ, and who promised His followers that He would always be with them in the form of the Holy Spirit [John 14:15-20]. An indication that the author of this document was aware of the physical existence of Jesus comes when he says that the Logos "manifestly appeared and spoke in the plainest terms". The Greek word that becomes "manifestly" is "phaneroo", which precisely implied something visible, tangible, and actual.

It can be made to fit that, but it can also be made to fit a Logos religion without a distinct earthly founder. If the document is read for what it is worth, it looks far more like a Logos religion to me.

Why can this not be referring to a personified Logos, even as Proverbs 8 refers to personified wisdom?

Now, did he send him, as a human mind might assume, to rule by tyranny, fear, and terror? Far from it! He sent him out of kindness and gentleness, like a king sending his son who is himself a king. He sent him as God; he sent him as man to men.

So that right there is a point blank statement that Jesus Christ was a human being and perceived by other humans as such.

And is Proverbs 8 also a point blank statement that wisdom is an anthropomorphic spirit who does all those things? Why cannot all this be metaphorical?

In addition to the author's familiarity with the gospels and John in particular, the letter has many passages showing clear familiarity with Paul's epistles.

The writer may have been familiar with Paul and a source of the book of John, or even John itself. That does not prove that the writer thought that Jesus was a human being with a real human mother.

The parallelism between this and the well-known passage in 2 Cor 6 is obvious and too strong to occur by chance. So in summary, this letter does not fit at all with Doherty's thesis that there was a separate "Logos Christianity" among people who had no knowledge of the gospels or Paul's Epistles. Rather it serves as strong evidence that the gospels and the epistles were the basis for Christian thought at the time of its writing.

Where does Doherty state that those with a Logos Christianity had no knowledge of Paul's epistles or the gospels? There was much common culture among the early Christians.

My understanding is that the writings of Paul were on the margins of Chritianity after his death, and did not become widely known until well into the second century. I am not surprised that a writer in the second century would use some wording that resembled Paul.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well said. And there are other examples of early extant letters where virtually nothing is said about Jesus or the crucifixion. If they don't fit into Doherty's theories, then they actually become evidence against them. After all, if we have examples of letters that indicate a belief in an earthly Jesus yet have only hints of such, how can we then point to another letter where we see the same and say it is representative of a belief in an a historical Jesus?

The letter in question was written to a man who wanted to know what Christians believed in, and "why this new race or way of life has appeared on earth now and not earlier." Surely this would have been the place to say that Jesus had been born of a human mother a century ago, had lived and worked miracles on earth, had died an atoning death on Calvary, and had physically risen from the dead. That doesn't seem to be this author's message.

So what else can we see in the letter? The author says that Christianity was fairly new:

"... this new kind or practice [of piety] has only now entered into the world, and not long ago..."
​

Alex has pointed out this passage, but it is worth repeating. The author says that this new practice involved a Saviour sent by God to men; not as a tyrant to inspire fear but rather in meekness; not to compel but to persuade:

"This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us..."
​

For God has loved mankind... whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son...

Can this not be a metaphorical representation of a savior god similar to personified wisdom in Proverbs?

And, having sent His Son, His Son will be sent again, to judge us:
As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?

The author also gives us some idea on how widespread Christianity was in his day:

... inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct... Every foreign land is to them as their native country... Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world...
​

Whatever this new religion is, which claims that God sent His Son and Savior to men, in meekness rather than in tyranny, it could be found in many places around the world.

If Merle places this letter at some time after the date that he considers that some Christians started to believe in a historical Jesus (due to the influence of the Gospels, perhaps), then he would have to agree that this sounds like the historical Jesus, even if Merle prefers some other reading for this. That is, if this is some "Logos Christianity", then they are kicking a bit of a home-goal by expressing things this way!

Why do you think this sound like an historical Jesus? For Christ means "annointed", and Christ-ians simply followed an annointed savior. The fact that they followed an annointed savior does not prove this savior was thought to be a recent homo sapiens on earth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It seems to me nobody addressed the question you asked me, which is why did Paul state that he lacked nothing or was not behind the chiefest of the Apostles?

You need to exercise hermeneutics to understand that passage. IIRC,

Paul's credibility was under attack. He withstood "the pillars of the Church" to their face, because they were wrong. And a "Church council" vindicated Paul.

Uh, yes, Paul was under attack, and I discussed that. The point is that Paul said:

2Cr 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
​

How could this be convincing to followers of Peter?

If Paul had said that, although Peter spent years with Jesus, nevertheless he, Paul, had years of training and success in the ministry, Peter's followers might have seen that he had a valid point. But if he says Peter has nothing over him, and Peter's followers knew that Peter had spent 3 years working with Jesus on earth, they would have laughed at Paul.

 

[Johnnz]

Uh, yes, Paul was under attack, and I discussed that. The point is that Paul said:

2Cr 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
​

How could this be convincing to followers of Peter?

If Paul had said that, although Peter spent years with Jesus, nevertheless he, Paul, had years of training and success in the ministry, Peter's followers might have seen that he had a valid point. But if he says Peter has nothing over him, and Peter's followers knew that Peter had spent 3 years working with Jesus on earth, they would have laughed at Paul.

You simply do not understand the social context of Paul's statements. The issue Paul was addressing was his refusal to go along with customary patronage practices and its associated status, which offended some probably better off members who were expecting due acknowledgement of
their gifts to Paul. Paul inverted custom and expressed that through irony.

John
NZ

 

[doubtingmerle]

You simply do not understand the social context of Paul's statements. The issue Paul was addressing was his refusal to go along with customary patronage practices and its associated status, which offended some probably better off members who were expecting due acknowledgement of
their gifts to Paul. Paul inverted custom and expressed that through irony.

John
NZ

Sure, one can disagree with patronage practices, but if a person has spent 3 years in apprenticeship to the Incarnate God, isn't that a great thing to have on your resume? Shouldn't Paul have acknowledeged that Peter had this one great advantage over him?

Paul mentions Peter, James and John several times, but never hints that they had a personal experience with Jesus on earth. In 1 Cor 15, for instance, he makes no distinction that their experience with the resurrected Christ was in any way different from his vision of Jesus.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

My understanding is that the writings of Paul were on the margins of Chritianity after his death, and did not become widely known until well into the second century.

That is simply not true. Paul ordered his letters circulated throughout the early church, and they were recognized as authoritative very quickly, by both the church and by Peter.

In 1 Cor 15, for instance, he makes no distinction that their experience with the resurrected Christ was in any way different from his vision of Jesus.

Paul expresses on at least one occasion jealousy that he never walked with Christ while the other Apostles did. But he did see his own experience as just as legitimate as the other Apostles, even though he acknowledged that it was an odd way to become an Apostle.

*edit

Doubtingmerle might find this of interest, as it deals with pretty much every aspect of Paul/Jesus/etc

http://christianthinktank.com/muslix.html

 

[GakuseiDon]

The letter in question was written to a man who wanted to know what Christians believed in, and "why this new race or way of life has appeared on earth now and not earlier." Surely this would have been the place to say that Jesus had been born of a human mother a century ago, had lived and worked miracles on earth, had died an atoning death on Calvary, and had physically risen from the dead. That doesn't seem to be this author's message.

Very few of the extant authors of that period wrote in that detail. And to emphasize: very few mentioned historical details at all about anything. If they mentioned many historical details about the early church EXCEPT about a historical Jesus, then you would have a point. But they didn't, and there are many examples. If you've read my reviews of Doherty's work, you would this. Like Doherty, you are simply trying to read early texts as though they wrote for us rather than for themselves. Surely you would have to agree there is a danger in doing this? Don't you need to set this letter against the wider literary background of the time? Doherty hasn't done this, and he should have.

Can this not be a metaphorical representation of a savior god similar to personified wisdom in Proverbs?

I doubt it. The author writes:

As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?
​

It doesn't sound like 'a metaphorical representation'. What happened to the first sending of the 'metaphorical representation'? Ask yourself: when was the letter written? Who was the audience? What would they have been expected to know about Christianity already? If it was written after some Christians started believing in a historical Jesus, what would the audience have made of comments from a Christian about a Saviour being sent to men, in meekness rather than in tyranny, and will be sent again to judge us all?

Also:

"[God] did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things... but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things--by whom He made the heavens--by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds... This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us..."
​

You would need to show how 'a metaphorical representation' could be sent to men 'for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror'. (This sounds like the traditional notion of the Jewish Messiah, a warrior-king leading his people to victory over his enemies. If this letter was written around the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion, then a Christian might well point out that his Christ was not sent 'for the purpose of exercising tyranny'. Still, that's a minor point.) And how this 'metaphorical representation' could be sent, and then sent again, the next time to judge us.

Why do you think this sound like an historical Jesus? For Christ means "annointed", and Christ-ians simply followed an annointed savior. The fact that they followed an annointed savior does not prove this savior was thought to be a recent homo sapiens on earth.

Then that goes back to my earlier questions. Keeping in mind that, according to the author, his Christianity had Christians "inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities" and "scattered through all the cities of the world", then:

1. When was this letter written? And when were the last two paragraphs written and added to the text?
2. Who is the audience?
2. Which Christian groups from that time could have written it? Which believed in a Saviour being sent to men, in meekness rather than in tyranny, and will be sent again to judge us all?

You see, if these kinds of letters, written so late (between 130--200 CE, unless you want to challenge this) can be shown to be most likely written by HJ Christians, and that this type of style was common, then Doherty's use of Paul comes crashing down. And that IMHO is exactly the case.

 

[AlexBP]

The writer may have been familiar with Paul and a source of the book of John, or even John itself. That does not prove that the writer thought that Jesus was a human being with a real human mother.

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

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

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

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

Now on to the epistle of Diognetus, which you presumably include as one work that "emphasized the personified Logos and hidden wisdom rather than an historical Jesus". (I don't see any emphasis on hidden wisdom in it, but maybe that's just me.) Your phrasing is deliberately vague there. Are you arguing that the author of this epistle didn't believe in a historical Jesus at all? If so it brings up an obvious question. (The most obvious question being: why did he say that he did believe Jesus was a man? But you've already shown your intention to evade that question with your usual "it's metaphorical" excuse.) The obvious question is that if this person didn't believe in a historical Jesus, then why did he build his letter out of quotes and paraphrases from the gospels and the epistles of Paul, all sources that did believe in a historical Jesus? How could he simultaneously reject the entirety of what those sources said while relying entirely on those sources?

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

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

 

[AlexBP]

And yet you have provided this quote from Justin Martyr, which shows there is indeed a similarity:

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (emphasis added)
​

So Justin says the cult of Mithras was "commanding the same thing" concerning eating of the body and blood. Justin credits devils with creating the Mithras ritual just like the Christian ritual. That sounds like they were very similar to me.

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

The next piece of evidence you offer is that Justin Martyr and Tertullian claimed to find similarities between the two rituals. There is actually strong evidence that the passage you're referring to from Justin Martyr is not authentic.
...
So from that last sentence, it seems that Justin did not actually believe that followers of Mithras treated bread and wine as the body of their god; they had a ritual involving bread and water, but that's where the similarity ends. Indeed Justin ties this to "rites of one whi is being initiated", which is obviously a very different from the position that Paul and the gospelers had for the eucharist in Christianity.

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

Which came first?

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

So it is not enough for you to say that we differ on an issue of history?

Instead you need to insist that those who differ with you are outright lying?

Can you understand how such language is not conducive to civil debates? Why not give people the benefit of the doubt? Even if they disagree with you, that does not mean they are deliberately lying.

Oh, please. If you read post 285 you'll see that my claim of "lying" was directed specifically at a particular claim that the Mithras mythos included the character telling his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood. That particular claim was a flat-out lie and I call 'em like I see 'em. Here is the link again if you want the details.

So now I will need to read Turkel's endless distortions and reply to all of his writings also?

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

Possibly they instituted a eucharist ritual, and possibly this ritual was based on Greek savior myth cults.

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

Several times I asked you if we couldn't just agree to disagree. Apparently not.

You've been asking me to "agree to disagree" quite a bit lately. Indeed, a bystander might wonder if it's your standard response upon seeing that the facts are against you. This is a debate, is it not? In a debate, the debaters are expected to provide evidence to support their position, are they not? If you're not able to provide any evidence that the Mithras cult existed prior to Christianity or that they had any ritual that could have served as the basis for the eucharist, why shouldn't I continue to point out these facts? Why can't you just acknowledge that you were wrong in claiming that Paul and Mark both copied their version of the eucharist from the Mithras tradition? Then we could agree to agree instead.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is simply not true. Paul ordered his letters circulated throughout the early church, and they were recognized as authoritative very quickly, by both the church and by Peter.

Are you aware that it is commonly understood that Peter did not write the books of 1 and 2 Peter, but that they were written far later by someone who claimed to be Peter?

Paul expresses on at least one occasion jealousy that he never walked with Christ while the other Apostles did. But he did see his own experience as just as legitimate as the other Apostles, even though he acknowledged that it was an odd way to become an Apostle.

Ah, this could be the clincher. All you need to do is provide the reference to one of those occasions where Paul expresses "jealousy that he never walked with Christ while the other Apostles did" and we can shut the thread down, declare you the winner, and all go have a beer together.

Oh, but first you need to find the reference.