Did Jesus Exist?

doubtingmerle said:

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?

Click to expand...

No, actually I don't have to interview every Jew from that century to establish the point. What I have to do is investigate what is known about Jewish religion and thought in the first century. And when I investigate that, I find that all groups of Jews quite definitely avoided incorporating Pagan influences into their religion. I have already given you the details in post #292, which was just a repost of something from earlier in the thread. I'm not going to bother posting the whole thing a third time. If you want to actually respond to post #292 rather than just ignoring most of it, go right ahead. But for you to say I have to interview every Jew from that century is a pointless waste of time on your part. To learn about what people thought in previous centuries it is neither possible nor necessary to interview every single person. Scholars work with the material that they have. In the case of the Jews, we have more material than for any other ancient nation because they were so scrupulous about records. For example, we have the entirety of the Talmud, which dates from Roman times and is 23 large volumes. Do we find any evidence in there that any group of Jews changed their religion based on Greek philosophy in the first century?

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

Click to expand...

Yes, but we're not debating that. What we're debating is whether Greek philosophy produced changes in Jewish religion in the first century. In post #292 I've laid out my reasons for believing that they did not.

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.

Click to expand...

Agian, the question at issue here is not one of "influence" generally, but influence on religion. We know what Paul's religious views were, since it's established both in his own letters and in the Book of Acts. Paul was a Pharisee and a particularly zealous one, prior to the moment when Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. The Pharisees did not mingle Greek philosophy with Jewish religion; they were militant about maintaining the purity of Jewish religion.

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?

Click to expand...

You named a few books. When I asked you what in those books had convinced you of the point, it turned out that you hadn't actually read them. "Judging a book by its cover" has long been a cliched representation of laziness. Since the main book that you were referencing costs $120 I'm not going to buy a copy. If you want to give me actual reasons why I should believe that Greek thought influenced Jewish religion in the first century, then I will be happy to look at them.

doubtingmerle said:

Yes.

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

Click to expand...

Uh huh. This branch of the debate began with the contention about whether Paul believed that Jesus, the Messiah, lived on earth or not. You are trying to argue that Paul believed the Messiah did not live on earth. That's the conclusion that you're trying to prove. Now you're invoking the conclusion that you're trying to prove as part of the argument to support that conclusion--a classic case of circular reasoning. Why would you do something so desperate? Could this be your way of admitting that you can't name any first-century Jewish person or group who viewed the Messiah as anything other than an earthly human beings.

Second, when you say "the epistles seem to indicate a Christ that did not live on earth", you are wrong. They clearly, unambiguously say that Christ lived on earth many times. A few examples:

1. Paul claimed to be spread the "gospel". [Romans 1:1] As already mentioned, this term refered to a report about events, not merely an interpretation of ancient scriptures, and Paul's introduction to Romans is likely modeled on the birth announcements for a child of the Emperor.

2. Paul says that Jesus was "born of a descendant of David according to the flesh". [Romans 1:3]

3. Paul describes Jesus Christ as a man repeatedly. You say that you can only find two instances. I can find many more.

"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." [Romans 5:15-9]

So there are three references to Jesus Christ as a man in that passage alone.

4. Further, the entire point of chapter 5 of Romans is to juxtapose how "sin entered the world through one man" with "God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ". Since Paul certainly thought that Adam was a man, the comparison only makes sense if Paul thought that Jesus was a man.

5. Paul says that Jesus was buried. [Romans 6:4 and many other passages.]

6. Paul says that God "sent Jesus Christ in the likeness of sinful flesh". [Romans 8:3]

7. Paul says that Jesus Christ was "an offering for sin" by which "he condemned sin in the flesh". [Romans 8:3-4] As understood by the Jews, "offerings" were only physical things, animals in most cases.

8. Paul says that Jesus Christ was an Israelite. [Romans 9:4-5]

9. Paul says that "Christ has become a servant of the circumcision" (i.e. was circumcised.) [Romans 15:8]

10. Paul quotes Jesus Christ numerous times, as I've already discussed.

So there are ten indications that Paul believed Jesus Christ did live on earth. We've gotten this far without even exhausting the book of Romans. References to Jesus' earthly life are equally dense in Paul's other letters. In addition, the idea the epistles indicate a Christ who did not live on earth has been addressed at length by scholars. See any of these links:

musly1
Doherty on 'According to the Flesh'
Earl Doherty's "Evolution of Jesus refuted; Jesus existed proved, Q community disproved--page 1
http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.html

So there's a very small portion of the total amount of evidence that Paul believed Jesus Christ to be a human being who lived on earth. What do you have to say in response to justify your claim that "the epistles seem to indicate a Christ who did not live on earth"? I rather suspect that your response, if it comes at all, will involve many claims about passages being metaphorical and a lot of demands that we agree to disagree. But who knows? Maybe you'll surprise us.

doubtingmerle said:

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?

Click to expand...

Okay, here's my reference. It comes from the Jewish encyclopedia, an authoritative source on Jewish religion and history. It comes from the article about the Messiah:

But though the name is of later origin, the idea of a personal Messiah runs through the Old Testament. He ...will be a scion of the stock of Jesse.

Click to expand...

So there you have it in so many words. The Jews believed that the Messiah would be a physical person, a Jew, and a descendant of Jesse. David was Jesse's son, so by pointing out that Jesus was a physical descendant of David, Paul was emphasizing how Jesus was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah that the messiah would be a descendant of Jesse. The article confirms that this belief in the messiah as a person pervaded Judaism, and that particularly in Roman times beliefs in the personal Messiah was very strong. It does not include any mention of any interpretation of the Messiah that matches the one which your theory depends on. (The authors of the article are well aware that the term translated "messiah" is used in other contexts as well, but that has no bearing on the question at hand.) If you don't like that particular source, you can look up ancient Jewish beliefs about the Messiah in any other scholarly source and find the same information.

In addition to that, you have not addressed what I earlier:

AlexBP said:

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.

Click to expand...

Now this list may not quite contain every first-century source we have that mentioned the Messiah, but it certainly contains the major ones.

So with that established, we're back to the original question. Jews in the first century believed that the messiah would be a flesh-and-blood human being and descendant of David. According to your theory, Paul believed the exact opposite. Why is it reasonable to believe that Paul would believe something opposite to what all Jews believed? (Bear in mind, I've already responded to your circular reasoning argument that it's reasonable to believe that Paul believed it because Paul believed it.)

doubtingmerle said:

We don't have any variant readings of that text, but there is good reason to think that passage may have been changed somtime after 70 AD but before the book was widely copied. Doherty cites "Mack, Koester, Pearson, Meeks, Perkins, Brandon" as sources who dismiss I Thes 2:14-16. (see Jesus Project Demise ). The two main objections are that v16 says that "wrath is come upon them [the Jews] to the uttermost," an obvious reference to the events of 70 AD having already occured. Also Paul's outcry against his own nationality, the Jews, is totally out of character, as Paul is always reserved in his condemnation of Jews.

Click to expand...

Both of these objections have been addressed. For example, the article by Marcus Boekmuehl which I link to below addresses both of them at length. The statement in verse 16 that "wrath has come upon them to the uttermost" is not necessarily a reference to the desturction of Jerusalem or the war of 66-73 A.D. In fact, that translation from the NASB is not a particularly good one. A better translation would be this from the NIV: "The wrath of God has come upon them at last." Boekmuehl delves into the particular language of this phrase at length, noting how these words were used in contemporary Christian and Jewish writing. As he concludes:

Neither a final eschatological condemnation of the Jews nor some other catastrophic event (cf. ‘to the uttermost’ in AV and other older translations) is required by this phrase. In rendering these two words ‘at last’, RSV and NRSV are right to find here, as in Luke 18:5, an adverbial phrase carrying somewhat more modest temporal connotations.

Click to expand...

Concerning the entire argument, Boekmuehl sees no reason to believe that Paul is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, and he gives a strong argument that there were several other events that this could be referring to.

The actual historical reference need have nothing to do with AD 70; indeed it could reasonably be supposed to denote a number of different events in the years preceding the composition of 1 Thessalonians.

Click to expand...

He also addresses the issue of Paul's supposed attack against the Jews being out of character and contrary to what Paul says in other letters. As Boekmuehl shows, the word that's used to reference "the Jews" in verse 14 did not necessarily refer to the Jewish people as a whole. In fact, when Paul wanted to refer to the Jewish people as whole, he typically used a different word. There's reason to believe that this Paul was directing this condemnation against a certain subset of Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.

Here's the article:
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2001_52_1_01_Bockmuehl_1Thess2.pdf

So in conclusion, there's no overwhelming reason to believe that 1 Thess 2:14-16 is an interpolation. In the absense of any manuscript evidence calling its validity into question, the burden of proof is on the doubters to show that this passage is not original to Paul's letter. Hence it seems safe to take that passage as yet another in the long series which clearly indicate that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus.

doubtingmerle said:

The point is that few seem to have believed in an earthly Jesus during much of the second century, but more and more people believed it by 180 AD.

Did you read what the webpage says about Justin's conversion? The evidence indicates Justin begins with a faith in the wisdom of Christ, and only later comes to believe that wisdom was taught by a Christ on earth.

That is the interesting thing about Logos belief. One can begin by believing in wisdom from a Logos without considering the location of the Logos, and when one is later told that the Logos was on earth, it is a small change to add the earthly Jesus to the story.

Click to expand...

To me it certainly does not look like a "small change" at all. To me, switching from a belief in the Logos as an abstract concept with no body to a belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God on earth, is obviously an enormous change. I can't fathom how you expect to be taken seriously when making such an assertion.

Now let's take a look at what Doherty actually says about Justin the Martyr and see whether it's true or not.

Earl Doherty said:

After reaching Rome in the 140s, he encountered some of the Gospels and embraced the historical man-god they told of. In his apologetic writings, penned in the 150s, Jesus and the Gospels occupy center stage. For Justin, the Word/Logos "took shape, became man, and was called Jesus Christ" (Apology, 5). But he has left us an inadvertent record of the nature of the faith he joined before his encounter with the story of a human Jesus.

The Dialogue with the Jew Trypho was written after the Apology, and the latter can be dated to the early 150s. But the action of Trypho is set at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt, in the 130s, and scholars are confident that this represents the time of Justin's conversion, which he describes in the opening chapters.
By the sea near Ephesus Justin encounters an old man, a Christian philosopher. After a discussion of the joys and benefits of philosophy, the old man tells of ancient Jewish prophets who spoke by the Divine Spirit. These prophets, he says, had proclaimed the glory of God the Father and his Son, the Christ. (This was the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Platonic terms.) Wisdom could come only to those who have it imparted to them by God and his Christ.
At this, says Justin (8:1), "a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets and of those who are friends of Christ possessed me." Justin does not even say (despite the best attempts of some commentators) that he felt a love for Christ himself, for in the Christianity to which he was converted, Christ was a philosophical concept. He was a part of the Godhead in heaven, a Logos-type entity. This Christ is a Savior by virtue of the wisdom he imparts (8:2). This is Justin's concept of salvation here, for he goes on to conclude the story of his conversion by saying to Trypho: "If you are eagerly looking for salvation, and if you believe in God, you may become acquainted with the Christ of God and, after being initiated, live a happy life." (Later, under the influence of the Gospels, Justin laid increasing emphasis on the redeeming value of Christ's death and resurrection, but in the basic Logos religion the Son saves by revealing God.) Where is Jesus of Nazareth in all this? The old philosopher had not a word to say about him, nor about any incarnation of the Son.

Click to expand...

So Mr. Doherty has certianly thrown down the gauntlet there. He claims that in Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, the old philosopher "has not a word to say" about "any incarnation of the Son". Doherty is wrong. He does actually speak about the incarnation of the Son. In chapter fourteen Justin's character says: "some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance." While it is not the old man who says this, reading it in context makes absolutely clear that the old man supports this interpretation. So Dailogue with the Jew Trypho says point blank that at the time when it was supposedly taking place, Justin knew that Jesus lived on earth, flatly contradicting what Doherty says about it.

Next up Doherty says this:

Trypho himself may be a literary invention, but Justin puts into his mouth (8:6) a telling accusation, one which must have represented a common opinion of the time: "But Christ—if he has indeed been born, and exists anywhere—is unknown . . . And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves. "

Click to expand...

Now you might be wondering, what exactly did Doherty leave out in that ellipsis, and why? The answer is that if you read the work you will see that what the old man is saying is that he doesn't believe that Jesus was the Christ because Elias (Elijah) did not annoint Jesus, not in any way suggesting doubt that Jesus existed.

So in summary there is no support for the idea that "The evidence indicates Justin begins with a faith in the wisdom of Christ, and only later comes to believe that wisdom was taught by a Christ on earth." Instead the evidence shows that that is not true.

doubtingmerle said:

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

Click to expand...

You're obviously very keen on this argument that since Proverbs 8 personifies wisdom, therefore any statement about Jesus being a human being can instead be interpreted as a personification of the Logos, and therefore it doesn't count as evidence that the writer in question believed Jesus to be human. However, the argument is quite weak for reasons that really ought to be obvious. Everybody knows that wisdom is not a person. Therefore when the author(s) of Proverbs could safely personify wisdom without risk of confusing anyone or being misinterpreted. Authors of other ancient Jewish works did the same with wisdom and other abstractions.

But what about the Logos? You initially claimed that second century Christianity was dominated by belief in the Logos while those who believed in the Jesus of the gospels were "marginal". After I counted up the number in each category, you changed your mind and decided that in the second century a majority who believed in the historical Jesus existed side-by-side with a "huge swath" who emphasized the Logos instead. You've also said that these two groups interacted and shared much in common. Now if this were true, it would surely be important for every writer to be clear about which of the two groups he belonged to. Hence if the author of the Epistle to Diognetus believed in the Logos and not a historical Jesus, he would surely want to make sure that he didn't sow confusion about the point, so he wouldn't litter his letter with statements about God being "placed among men" and appearing "as man to men", because those statements could easily be misinterpreted as indicating belief in a historical Jesus.

Indeed, if there were actually a "Logos Christianity" and a Christianity based on the Jesus of the gospels vying throughout most of the second century, we'd expect all the authors on either side of the split to go to great lengths to make clear which side of the split we were on. But we do not see that; indeed we find not one single author anywhere who says that he doesn't believe in a historical Jesus, nor do we find any who believes in a historical Jesus speaking forcefully against the Logos Christianity. So I might ask, how does your theory about the existence of the Logos Christianity account for these facts? Now suppose we imagine for a minute that the Logos Christianity is a figment of your imagination. Would that not account for the facts a lot better?

doubtingmerle said:

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.

Click to expand...

We're still waiting to learn exactly who is in this "huge swath". You began this line of argument by linking to two articles by Earl Doherty which supposedly demonstrated that Christians in the second century generally didn't believe in a historical Jesus. However, when we read those articles we found that Doherty was wrong. The first article concerned Christian writers from early in the second century. In post #177 of this thread, GakusieDon carefully worked through the list given by Doherty and showed that every one of them listed as being against a historical Jesus was actually in favor of a historical Jesus. You never responded. Then in post #214 I took the same approach with the list Doherty gave from Christian apologists later in the second century. You've responded to the last sentence of that post, but not the rest of it. Here's what I wrote:

AlexBP said:

The epislte to Diogentus I have already addressed, linking to a version online that shows it is completely intertwined with the gospels and the letters of Paul, and thus goes against what you're claiming.
Ocatvius we have also looked at, and seen that it gives no reason to suppose Felix was against the idea a historical Jesus.
Next up is Tatian. Obviously he was a believer in a historical Jesus when he wrote the Diatessaron. Doherty argues that he believed in Logos Christianity first and later switched to believing in Jesus as a historical figure. This, I think we can agree, is a rather thin argument. But it actually gets worse, because Tatian's Oration to the Greeks says this: "We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man." Doherty flails around for a couple paragraph trying to explain this quote away, but can't come up with any meaningful way to make this fit with the theory that Tatian didn't believe in a historical Jesus while writing this. Further, Oration to the Greeks contains many overlaps with the gospels and epistles, such as chapter 5, obviously coming from John's prologue. Doherty insists that it doesn't actually come from John's prologue, but he can't give any reason why he believes this.
Athenagoras we've already looked at and noted that he uses the gospels. Thus he can hardly be used to prove that the gospels were 'marginal' at any time in the second century.
So now you're left only with Theophilus. Theophilus makes no specific references to a historical Jesus, but neither does he make any references against that. Hence we've no reason to doubt that his theology of the Logos was similar to that of John's.

Click to expand...

I did not specifically address Justin the Martyr in post #214, but I have since done so in #325. So we've seen that there are the following apologists who certainly believed Jesus to be a historical person in the second century: Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Papias, Justin the Martyr, Polycarp, Tatian, Quadratus of Athens, the author of Epistle to Diognetus (who I will hereafter refer to as AED because I'm sick of writing out "the author of the Epistle to Diognetus"), and Athenagoras. That's nine. Only two Christian apologists from that period do not specifically say that they believed in a historical Jesus: Theophilus and Minucius Felix. Now I've already discusses those two and shown that there's strong reason to believe they believed in a historical Jesus even if they did not say so directly. But let's ignore that for the moment. So nine who believed in a historical Jesus and at most two who possibly didn't. How on earth can you then go insisting that "most of the Christian apologists" point in the direction of a distinct Logos Christianity"?

For a more in-depth look at what the second-century apologists believed about the historical Jesus, I recommend this article:
Earl Doherty, the Jesus Myth and Second Century Christian Writings
I would venture to say that it demolishes your argument so thoroughly that I almost feel sorry for you.

Moreover, I asked this question in post #214:

AlexBP said:

Furthermore, I could point out that church fathers from the following years, such as Irenaeus, Eusebonius, Origen, and St. Jerome, all wrote about Christian history, traced the origins of Christians, and listed heretical beliefs. If there had been a large group of Christians in the mid-second century who did not believe in Jesus Christ, don't you think that at least one of these guys would have mentioned that as a heretical belief?

Click to expand...

You never answered.

You've earlier said that it's tough to respond to every post in this thread when there are so many and I understand. If you don't want to respond to every post, that's quite excusable. What's neither understandable nor excusable is you continuing to insist on this imaginary "Logos Christianity" after we've spent so much time debunking it. Dropping the topic would be a good option. Responding to what we say would be a good option. Admitting that Earl Doherty suckered you into believing something untrue would be the best option. Insisting that it existed while ignoring all the contrary evidence is a very bad option, particularly where your credibility is concerned.

doubtingmerle said:

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

Click to expand...

The original was in Greek. We're looking at an English translation. That English translation was in the NASB, which you have already agreed to be reliable. So if we want to know how the translators of the NASB interpreted this passage, we should look at the version with the commas.

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

From reading that the results are immediately clear. First, the translators of the NASB obviously think that the "gospel" Paul in refering to is the one that concerns the Son, who is Jesus Christ. Second, the translators of the NASB obviously think that Paul believed Jesus to be a flesh-and-blood descendant of David. Now let me remind you that you've already said that you use the NASB because it's reliable. Are you then willing to follow their interpretation of this particular passage? If not, why not?

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.

Click to expand...

"Metaphorical realm of flesh"? What's that, if you don't mind me asking? How many examples can you come up with in which anybody in the first century refered to a "metaphorical realm of flesh"? (Please don't try a circular reasoning argument that we know Paul believed in a metaphorical realm of flesh because Paul believed in a 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".

Click to expand...

This argument is utterly desperate even by your standards. Are you honestly expecting that anyone is going to believe that Paul was saying that Jesus was a plant that grew from a seed? I'm assuming you're not. One of the definitions for "sperma" that you just quoted is "the product of this sperm, seed, children, offspring, progeny". Common sense dictates that this is the definition that Paul was using in Romans 1:1-3, and not any other.

Romans 1 may describe Jesus as a physical descendent, in spite of all the evidence that Paul thought otherwise,

Click to expand...

What exactly was that evidence? I don't recall you presenting any such evidence, despite many requests that you do so.

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?

Click to expand...

Well, I've already answered this many times, but since you apparently missed the answer those times, I'll repeat it. Here are the reasons why we know that this passage is literal. First, it says that Jesus was descended from David "according to the flesh". What does the phrase "according to the flesh" mean? I've already explained, but since you have ignored my explanation, let me quote Dr. Ronald Williamson: "The phrase is a common expression for human nature. The rabbis use it chiefly where the corruptible nature of man is compared with the eternity and omnipotence of God, but the usage is older than the rabbinic literature and the idea of mortality and creature lines is bound up with it from the outset". So that's what the phrase meant at the time Paul used it (and still means). Second, Paul refers to Jesus as an earthly human being on dozens of occasions throughout his letters. Thus we know that Paul believed Jesus to be an earthly human being. Third, Paul believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, and all first-century Jews believed that the Jewish messiah would be a flesh-and-blood human being.

Your argument that Romans 1:3 is metaphorical because Gal 3:7 is metaphorical won't convince anybody for reasons that should be obvious. Consider this analogy. Bob writes in a letter "I own a rabbit, it lives in a cage, and I feed it a carrot every day." Several years later, in a different letter, to a different recipient, on a different topic, Bob writes "It's raining cats and dogs." The later statement is metaphorical. However, only a desperate person would argue that since Paul made a metaphorical statement involving animals in the second later, we can then safely conclude that the first reference to the rabbit must also be metaphorical. That would be a ridiculous argument that would only make its proponent look stupid. A smart person would instead say that Bob's statement about the rabbit is clearly phrased in such a way as to be obviously literal. Similarly, Paul's statement in Romans 1:1-4 is phrased in such a way as to be obviously literal. He uses phrases such as "in the flesh" that were never used metaphorically. He deliberately avoids phrases that were often used metaphorically.

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?

Click to expand...

Everybody who's taken seriously in the scholarly community believes that Jesus lived a life on earth. Implying that the translators of the NIV are untrustworthy because they believe that is like implying that my history textbook is biased because they believe Abraham Lincoln to have been lived a life on earth. If you have some credentials in Bible study that makes you trustworthy than the translators of the NIV, please tell us what they are. If you don't, then why should I trust you over them and over every other serious Bible scholar on the planet?

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".

Click to expand...

How many instances of ancient Greek can you show me in which "kata sarx" means "in his life on Mars as a space traveler"?

Given your answer to the previous question, why should I view this as anything other than desperate, nonsensical flailing around on your part?

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.

Click to expand...

Can you name any such place and show me an argument written by a reputable Bible scholar which shows that the NIV translators put ideology over accuracy?

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.

Click to expand...

It sounds like somebody realizes that his arguments are growing mighty thin. Previously I posted these two links:
Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition
Doherty on 'According to the Flesh'
You said that reading them would be "on your to-do list". Reading each will only take about five minutes. Why not respond to what they say?

doubtingmerle said:

Hebrews

Click to expand...

Okay, lets look at the Book of Hebrews. You've claimed from the start that this fits with your thesis that prior to Mark in 70 A.D. there's no source that refers to Jesus as a human being on earth. I believe that Hebrews does so many times. For example, in Hebrews 5:7-8, refering to Jesus, the author says:

In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Click to expand...

This comes from the NASB. Again, the Greek word that becomes flesh is sarx, the word that writers used when they wanted to carefully distinguish that they were refering to something on earth, rather than in Heaven. Indeed plenty of translations begin this verse with "during the days of Jesus' life on earth", as the two phrases meant exactly the same thing. Furthermore, here we have an example of Jesus praying. Nowhere in Jewish scripture or ancient Jewish theology do we get any inkling of any heavenly being praying in Heaven. Only human beings on earth prayed. (You've previously pointed out that we have no certain proof that this refers specifically to Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane. True, but so what?)

In Hebrews 4:14-15:

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Click to expand...

First of all, the phrase "has passed through" the heavens (dierchomai in the original Greek) definitely indicates an entrance into Heaven from somewhere else. Second, verse 15 is a direct reference to Jesus Christ having human nature.

In Hebrews 1:1-2:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

Click to expand...

Two things to note here. First, the author is at pains to emphasize that Jesus Christ spoke to humanity at a specific, recent time. This torpedoes any theory about him believing that the events of Jesus' life took place either in the distant past or in a heavenly and Platonic realm outside of time. Second, the author points to the similarity between God speaking to humanity "in the prophets" and "in His Son", showing that the author believed the Son to be human just like the prophets.

In Hebrews 1-6:

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

Click to expand...

So right there is a statement that Jesus Christ came "into the world". Lest there be any doubt about what's being said here, I'll point out that "the world" in passage comes from the Greek word Oikumene. This is the word that authors at the time specifically used when they wanted to indicate the world of humanity and carefully distinguish it from any spiritual or heavenly realm. So just as Paul did in Romans, the author of Hebrews began by going out of his way to be excruciatingly clear that Jesus was a human being.

In Hebrew 2:9:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Click to expand...

"Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels" doesn't fit with Jesus being up in Heaven very well. It fits quite well with Jesus being a human being on earth. (In the previous two verses the author quotes Psalm 8, which refers to human beings as "a little lower than the angels"; the implication that the author is trying to make is that Jesus became a human being.)

In Hebrews 2:14, refering to Jesus:

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same

Click to expand...

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

In Hebrews 2:11:

For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one

Click to expand...

Nice and clear once again.

In Hebrews 7:14:

For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah.

Click to expand...

Just like Paul, this author is keen to emphasize that Jesus' descent match that of the promised messiah. The Greek word translated as "evident" here is prodelos, which means "known to everybody". So from this we glean not only that the author of Hebrews knew Jesus to be a human descendant of the tribe of Judah, but that everyone was well aware of this.

In Hebrews 13:11-12:

For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

Click to expand...

A specific reference to the crucifixion including its location outside of Jerusalem.

Just like Paul, the author of Hebrews was aware that Jesus had promised to come to earth a second time. He says so in Hebrews 9:28:

so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Click to expand...

So if your theory is true it raises the question of how this person could have believed that Jesus would come to earth a second time if he never came to earth a first time? (For that matter, you've never answered the same question concerning Paul's reference to the second coming.)

You've asked again and again for references to an earthly Jesus dating from prior to Mark's gospel. Now you have them.

doubtingmerle said:

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?

Click to expand...

It is true, I'll grant you, that a majority of scholars of all stripes take that position on the authorship of 1 Peter and 2 Peters. But why would you ask us to believe what the scholars say.

Recall that at the start of the thread, you backed up a great many claims by saying "many scholars think ...." or "most scholars agree..." or "it is established that ..." After a few weeks, I began asking you to name exactly who these scholars were that you were refering to. My inquiries were unsuccessful, insofar as that (with one exception) you never tried to answer them. But you certainly did stop making sweeping claims about what the scholarly community believes once I made it clear that I intended to challenge you on those claims. Ever since then we've been boxing you in by comparing what you say to what the real scholarly consensus is. In response, you've often had to say or at least hint that many experts can't be trusted due to their bias and dogma. And I have no a priori objection to that. There are many fields where the majority of experts are untrustworthy, and if you can argue that it's true for Bible scholars then I'll listen.

But how can you simultaneously dismiss expert opinion on some issues in Bible study and use that expert opinion as a basis for what's "commonly understood" on other issues?

doubtingmerle said:

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

Click to expand...

Ah. I initally started post #328 with a snarky comment about Doherty's credentials and honesty. I've since removed it, deciding that it doesn't contribute to the discussion. Now let's take a serious look at the question.

Doherty says in his book: "I have a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages." He does not say where he got this degree, nor even what degree it is. Since that time, some people have asked him where he got his degree. It is, I hope you'll agree, a straightforward question. If Doherty would simply name the institution, anyone could then contact that institution and see whether the claim is true. Yet for some reason Doherty refuses to say where he got his degree from, at least as far as I know. Here is a citation on that, and here is an interview from just a few days ago where he again claims to have a degree but won't say where it comes from. Would you agree that Doherty's behavior in regards to this question is at least a little bit odd?

AlexBP said:

Ah. I initally started post #328 with a snarky comment about Doherty's credentials and honesty. I've since removed it, deciding that it doesn't contribute to the discussion. Now let's take a serious look at the question.

Doherty says in his book: "I have a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages." He does not say where he got this degree, nor even what degree it is. Since that time, some people have asked him where he got his degree. It is, I hope you'll agree, a straightforward question. If Doherty would simply name the institution, anyone could then contact that institution and see whether the claim is true. Yet for some reason Doherty refuses to say where he got his degree from, at least as far as I know. Here is a citation on that, and here is an interview from just a few days ago where he again claims to have a degree but won't say where it comes from. Would you agree that Doherty's behavior in regards to this question is at least a little bit odd?

Click to expand...

Even with a degree, he may still be incorrect.

elman said:

Even with a degree, he may still be incorrect.

Click to expand...

True that. But consider this. Mr. Doherty is by common consent the 'leading proponent' of the mythicist theory. (Which is a euphamistic way of saying that he's the only person still willing to waste his life arguing for such nonsense.) If it turns out that he's been parading around for the past fifteen years claiming to have a degree which he doesn't actually have, that would deal a rather serious blow to his credibility, would it not? It might even cause doubtingmerle to wonder whether blindly believing everything that Doherty says is a good idea.

If you go to the link in post #331, you'll see that I've posted a request for Mr. Doherty to name his university, as well as a request that he justify his interpretation of Romans 1:3. Thus far Doherty has refused to answer at all, while the owner of the blog has attacked me personally and suggested that it's unacceptable to ask such questions. Not exactly what you'd expect from a person who was truly interested in engaging his critics, is it?

AlexBP said:

True that. But consider this. Mr. Doherty is by common consent the 'leading proponent' of the mythicist theory. (Which is a euphamistic way of saying that he's the only person still willing to waste his life arguing for such nonsense.) If it turns out that he's been parading around for the past fifteen years claiming to have a degree which he doesn't actually have, that would deal a rather serious blow to his credibility, would it not? It might even cause doubtingmerle to wonder whether blindly believing everything that Doherty says is a good idea.

If you go to the link in post #331, you'll see that I've posted a request for Mr. Doherty to name his university, as well as a request that he justify his interpretation of Romans 1:3. Thus far Doherty has refused to answer at all, while the owner of the blog has attacked me personally and suggested that it's unacceptable to ask such questions. Not exactly what you'd expect from a person who was truly interested in engaging his critics, is it?

Click to expand...

Blindly believing everything anyone says including a pope is not a good idea.

From post #204:

doubtingmerle said:

When the temple was destroyed in 70 AD and the Jews were scattered from Jerusalem, the people were devastated, and apocalypatic ferver for a coming Messiah intensified. Mark combined Jewish Messiah ferver, Q teaching, Jewish "midrash" use of scripture, Greek epic tale structure, and the dying Jesus legend to tell his own story of a hero who had lived on earth.

Click to expand...

This brings us right back to a question that you've never answered. Do you have any evidence that any such genre as "combinations of Jewish Messiah ferver, Q teaching, Jewish 'midrash' use of scripture, Greek epic tale structure, and the dying Jesus legend" actually existed in the ancient Roman Empire? I've admitted already that I'm no professional scholar in ancient literature but I'm completely at a loss to name any example of anything remotely similar to what you're describing. It is my impression that the writings we have from that time and place fit into genres. While there may be some blurring of the boundaries of genres, the idea that Mark would simply mash all that stuff together doesn't seem to fit into any of the patterns of literature that we have, even by a great stretch of the imagination.

Big news! Earl Dohert has actually responded to my questions.

Well, "responded" may be too strong a word.

In response to the question about why he interprets "kata sarx" as not meaning what his own sources say that it means, he says the question is "garbled" and therefore he doesn't have to answer it. As for the question about where he got his degree from, he ignored that one entirely. I can't imagine why.

I've posted the questions again. We'll see whether he's willing to answer or not.

Good luck Alex. Just be aware that Neil Godrey sees criticisms of the mythicist position as being virtually akin to conspiracy. I noted that he called your post a "cheap focus at the person (that is, ad hominem)" and asks "do you have the guts to take on the issue or are you playing avoidance games by focusing attention “ad hominem”? Charming!

For the readers here: this is Alex's post on Neil's blog. Note the terrible adhominems!
Both perfectly reasonable questions. How this can be considered an "adhom" attack I have no idea, though perhaps Neil knows something we don't. To his credit, Neil is one of the few mythicists attempting to try to understand Doherty's case. But like many mythicists, Neil will see questioning of Doherty as agenda-driven, and will see albino monks behind every such question.

I just don't think it is worth trying to get any meaningful dialogue going on until they stop seeing conspiracies behind every approach. Questions become "attacks", repeated approaches become "vendettas". So be prepared to see your questions deflected with constant innuendos of your motives. The poster Spin on FRDB is an old-hand on debate boards, and simply ignored Doherty's baiting and focused on the questions. I recommend the same strategy. Because you are going to be baited by Neil and Doherty, no two ways about it.

When GakusieDon speaks of me (Neil Godfrey) as thinking that criticisms of the Christ-mythicism position as "virtually akin to lying" he is the one who is in fact lying. I challenge GDon to cite any evidence other than his own and James McGrath's childish snickerings to support his accusation.

I have made it perfectly clear that addressing the man rather than the argument is surely by any standard "ad hominem" and this is exactly the way the one who calls him/herself "AlexBP" insists on carrying on his/her argument.

"AlexBP" (whoever you are) -- I have offered a detailed response to your comments on my blog, and you have even said I have given you much to respond to. Kindly indicate on that blog where in specific detail you have actually responded to my comments.

AlexBP said:

while the owner of the blog has attacked me personally and suggested that it's unacceptable to ask such questions.

Click to expand...

Are you prepared to be honest enough to actually quote what I in fact DID say, and link to my post? Or do you make a habit of dotting the internet with your lying misrepresentations such as these.

Neil Godfrey -- the owner of the blog you have lyingly slandered here.

AlexBP said:

From post #204:

This brings us right back to a question that you've never answered. Do you have any evidence that any such genre as "combinations of Jewish Messiah ferver, Q teaching, Jewish 'midrash' use of scripture, Greek epic tale structure, and the dying Jesus legend" actually existed in the ancient Roman Empire? I've admitted already that I'm no professional scholar in ancient literature but I'm completely at a loss to name any example of anything remotely similar to what you're describing. It is my impression that the writings we have from that time and place fit into genres. While there may be some blurring of the boundaries of genres, the idea that Mark would simply mash all that stuff together doesn't seem to fit into any of the patterns of literature that we have, even by a great stretch of the imagination.

Click to expand...

mmm ... i would expect someone who admits to not being a professional scholar would evidence some humility . . . . You obviously have not read very much about literary genres -- nor much recent literature on gospel genres in particular. But if you keep up to date with the Vridar blog you will read quite a few posts on what the scholarly literature says about literary genres, with specific reference to gospel genres in particular. Not that my posts are definiitive, but you will gain a few citations of recent literature and learn how new genres do emerge, how ancient writiings of the time in question did draw on any and every known "genre" to create something new . . . . but I know this is not the sort of inquiry anyone with a closed mind about Gospel origins would find comfortable.

Neil Godfrey