Did Jesus Exist?

[doubtingmerle]

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

What I actually said was:

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

So no, I did not say much is tenuous. The interested reader can read MacDonald's book and your criticism, and decide for himself.

But where exactly in the Gospel of Mark are all the disciples depicted as "greedy, cowardly, potentially treacherous, and above all foolish"?

For instance in Mark 8, where Jesus "was stating the matter plainly" and Peter doesn't get it so Jesus says, "Get behind Me, Satan"

In Mark 9 the disciples still don't get it when Jesus talks about the cross.

In Mark 10 James and John ask to be ahead of the others in the resurrection.

In Mark 14 they fall asleep with Jesus facing death. Peter then denies repeatedly that he ever knew Jesus.

So if you want to defend this thesis, please tell me exactly what evidence you think to be convincing.

I don't have time to look into it. The interested reader can read MacDonald's book and your critique, and make up his mind.

None of this changes the fact that Mark wrote long after the events he records and has nobody before him who back up what he wrote.

There was a character named Mithras in Persian mythology. There was none in Greek mythology, and I have no idea where you got that idea from. Around the year 100 A.D. the first traces of the Roman Mithras cult appeared. The Persian and Roman versions of Mithras do not have anything in common other than the name.

Information about the Greek and Roman Mithras cult can be found at:
Mithras - Myth Encyclopedia - mythology, Greek, god, ancient, war, world, Roman, life, people
Mithraic mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Mithraism. Not an influence on Christianity

Robert Turkel! You turn to Robert Turkel?

No thanks. I will pass on that. He is famous for writing long diatribes with false information. See, for instance, Reply to Robert Turkel . I don't have the time to sort through all of that.

Tertullian and Justin Martyr admit that the Mithras cults had sacraments similar to the eucharist, but they don't give us the timing of when the cult began. See Mithras: all the passages in ancient texts that refer to the cult .

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

OK, the Internet has a lot of trash. And yet we should still click on your source on the Internet, yes?

Here is my problem. Everybody wants sources. If I mention a book or something that can be bought, ElijahW screams that I am selling books, and you complain that I am demanding that you read entire books! If I link to something on the Internet, you complain the Internet is not a credible source.

So what am I to do? You guys demand sources, but people refuse to accept books or anything that costs money as a source, and refuse to accept the Internet as a source. What exactly is there left to use?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

I see. And does that explain why there are so many different opinions about what the Bible is actually saying?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I see. And does that explain why there are so many different opinions about what the Bible is actually saying?

I attribute that more to our limited and shallow western style of thinking inherited from the Greeks and Romans than the Hebrews mastery of subtly conveying truths though poetic and metaphorical imagery.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I attribute that more to our limited and shallow western style of thinking inherited from the Greeks and Romans than the Hebrews mastery of subtly conveying truths though poetic and metaphorical imagery.

I see.

Roses are Red.
Violets are Blue.
Paul could have said "on earth",
if he had wanted to.

​

How am I doing?

 

[AlexBP]

Information about the Greek and Roman Mithras cult can be found at:
Mithras - Myth Encyclopedia - mythology, Greek, god, ancient, war, world, Roman, life, people
Mithraic mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Turkel! You turn to Robert Turkel?

No thanks. I will pass on that. He is famous for writing long diatribes with false information. See, for instance, Reply to Robert Turkel . I don't have the time to sort through all of that.

Tertullian and Justin Martyr admit that the Mithras cults had sacraments similar to the eucharist, but they don't give us the timing of when the cult began. See Mithras: all the passages in ancient texts that refer to the cult .

Okay, let's go back to the beginning on this one. 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. You have countered with the alternative explanation that both of them copied the event from the tradition of Mithras. Hence our entire debate about whether that's reasonable.

Now I could put forward many reasons why it isn't reasonable. First, as we've seen, there's little reason to believe that either Paul or the Gospelers would ever borrow from pagan religious sources, and plenty of reason to believe that they would not. Second, even if they were doing so, it would be a mighty strange coincidence that both Paul and the gospelers would latch onto this one particular ritual and both would put it precisely on the night before Jesus died. However, those two reasons would only show that your explanation is highly improbable, which is why I instead presented reasons why your explanation is impossible. So the third reason is lack of any similarity between the eucharist and any tradition in the Mithras cult. 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.

So, the first question is, does the sacred meal of the Mithras cult have anything at all in common with the Eucharist. What do we know about this sacred meal? From one of the Wikipedia pages that you just linked to:

Little is known about the beliefs of the cult of Mithras. Modern accounts rely primarily on modern interpretation of the reliefs.
No Mithraic scripture or first-hand account of its highly secret rituals survives, with the possible exception of a liturgy recorded in a 4th century papyrus, which may not be Mithraic at all. The walls of Mithraea were commonly whitewashed, and where this survives it tends to carry extensive repositories of graffiti and these, together with inscriptions on Mithraic monuments, form the main source for Mithraic texts.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the archeology of numerous Mithraea that most rituals were associated with feasting - as eating utensils and food residues are almost invariably found. These tend to include both animal bones and also very large quantities of fruit residues. The presence of large amounts of cherry-stones in particular would tend to confirm mid-summer (late June, early July) as a season especially associated with Mithraic festivities. The Virunum album, in the form of an inscribed bronze placque, records a Mithraic festival of commemoration as taking place on 26 June 184. Beck argues that religious celebrations on this date are indicative of special significance being given to the Summer solstice; but equally it may well be noted that, in northern and central Europe, reclining on a masonry plinth in an unheated cave was likely to be a predominantly summertime activity. For their feasts, Mithraic initiates reclined on stone benches arranged along the longer sides of the Mithraeum - typically there might be room for 15-30 diners, but very rarely many more than 40.Counterpart dining rooms, or were to be found above ground in the precincts of almost any temple or religious sanctuary in the Roman empire, and such rooms were commonly used for their regular feasts by Roman 'clubs', or collegia. Mithraic feasts probably performed a very similar function for Mithraists as the collegia did for those entitled to join them; indeed, since qualification for Roman collegia tended to be restricted to particular families, localities or traditional trades, Mithraism may have functioned in part as providing clubs for the unclubbed.

So hard to find anything there suggesting any relationship between the sacred meal of the Mithras cult and the eucharist. 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. Even if it is authentic, let's look at what it says:

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.

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. As for Tertullian, none the passages in which he mentions Mithras include any reference to the eucharist being duplicated by the Mithraic cult.

So where does the claim that the Mithraic cult had a sacred meal similar to the eucharist come from? The webpage that I linked to above answers that question.

It took me some digging to discover the actual origin of this saying. Godwin says that the reference is from a "Persian Mithraic text," but does not give the dating of this text, nor say where it was found, nor offer any documentation; that I found finally in Vermaseren [Verm.MSG, 103] -- the source of this saying is a medieval text; and the speaker is not Mithras, but Zarathustra!

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

Now on to the question of whether the Mithraic cult existed prior to the letters of Paul and the Gospels. I've already mentioned that the Mithraic cult in Roman times had virtually nothing beyond the name in common with the older Persian religion centered around a god named Mithras. In particular, the entire episode of Mithras slaying the sacred bull followed by the banquet with the sun god, did not exist in the Persian religion. The Wikipedia pages that you linked to agree with this. So then the question becomes, when did the Roman Mithraic cult begin? I've already linked to a page which shows that it did not. 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. However, if you don't trust him you can learn about the dating of the Mithras cult from plenty of other sources. For instance, Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi of Miami University in The Case of the Real Jesus says that the evidence points to the beginning of the Roman Mithras cult around 90 A.D. Even your Wikipedia page puts the earliest evidence at c. 80-120 A.D.

So, how can you justify the claim that Paul and Mark both copied their eucharist scenes from the Mithras cult, given these facts?

 

[AlexBP]

I have already responded to your quote from the Internet.

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

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

But Luke says:

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

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

Well, as I said, if you want to complain about "contrived explanations" then perhaps you should remove the beam from your own eye before complaining about the speck in someone else's. This entire branch of our debate emerged from the debate about the meaning of Romans 1:1-3. I choose to interpret it as meaning what it says, whereas you keep insisting that it is "poetic" and "figurative" and thus means the opposite of what it actually says. Now you've already admitted that you have not a single example in the entirety of ancient Jewish literature where the words in question are used to mean what you say they mean. They are always used to mean what I say they mean. So if you're willing to insist that the words "born of the seed of David according to the flesh" actually mean "not born of the seed of David according to the flesh", how can you complain about unusual usages anywhere else? 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. By contrast, there are no examples of the odd use of language that you're insisting on here in this passage. (Nor, it should be remarked, are there any examples to justify any of the other odd uses of language that your theory entirely depends on.)

What it shows is that genealogy might not have been held to the standard you claim. For if Luke--or his sources--can fabricate a false genealogy for Jesus, why could not somebody else refer to metaphorical seed of David?

Actually it works against you. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Matthew or Luke or both made up a fictional genealogy for Jesus. What would that tell us? It would tell us that they both knew that their audience would only accept Jesus as the messiah if Jesus was a physical descendant of David. It further confirms the well-known fact about how the Jews of the time, including Paul, understood the Messiah. Obviously neither Matthew nor Luke nor their intended audience used the language of descent metaphorically as it related to their argument about Jesus' status as the messiah, so nothing they said would have any relationship

And have you dropped the argument about seed? Previously you were insisting that "seed" can never be metaphorical, and that it always must be literal, and means the sperm. When I asked you whose sperm contributed to the immaculate conception, you seem to have suddenly dropped the demand that seed (sperm) needs to be literal, and changed to "descendents" instead.

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.

 

[AlexBP]

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

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

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

First of all, if the article that you linked to is reliable (a big 'if' given the nature of the website) then the NCV was not "written for children". It was written with simple language and later the publisher decided to use it as a children's edition; nevertheless it was written for adults and many adults use it. (Your focus on the word "man" may not be such a good idea, since Paul refers to Jesus as a "man" many times.) I personally don't use the NCV but that's beside the point. 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. 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,

2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

So there's absolutely no question there. The translators who prepared the NASB believe that in Romans 1, Paul is saying that Jesus was a physical descendant 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?

Please show me where the phrase, "in his earthly life" comes from. You can see the original Greek at my link. Now please show me which words in the orignal were the source of this phrase.

With pleasure. 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". So two different phrasing but both are equally valid. "of the seed of David" meant exactly the same as "a descendant of David" at the time. 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.

Again, if people are just inserting stuff into their versions to sell more Bibles, what does that have to do with scholarship?

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?

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

If you have any reason for placing the word in scare quotes and thus implying that the experts who prepared the NIV aren't experts, I'd like to hear it.

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

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. 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?

If we read that "Bob punched Joe", the correct interpretation is that Bob punched Joe. If you want to interpret it as a poetical way of saying that Bob did not punch Joe, then the onus is on you to justify that interpretation. If this sounds familiar, it's because I've made this point twice already and you haven't responded to it. Maybe this time you will, but I'm not holding my breath.

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

He did state it. In Romans 1:3 Paul states directly that Jesus lived on earth. There was nothing poetic about it; indeed it was very prosaic, and as I've mentioned before probably modeled on birth announcements used in the Roman Empire. Nor was there anything subtle about it that would classify it as a "hint". It was a flat statement of fact. The same could be said for Gal 4:4, Gal 1:19, 1 Cor 9:5, Phil 2:7, Romans 15:8, 1 Cor 7:12, Romans 9:5, 1 Cor 2:8, 1 Cor 11:23-5, 1 Thess 2:14-6, and a great many other passages in Paul's letters.

 

[AlexBP]

How do you know it needs to be a person?
...
How do you know the Jews thought the Messiah had to be flesh and blood?

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.

So now back to the question that you asked me. How do I know that the Jews thought of the Messiah as only a flesh-and-blood person? Luckily for me, I've already answered this in #262 so I can just quote what I've already said.

The answer is that they talked about a flesh-and-blood human being on earth. In fact the word "messiah" in Hebrew means a person annointed with oil, refering to a ceremony that took place on earth; it had no relationship to any heavenly or spiritual being. More importantly, a list of the messianic prophecies gives dozens of specific, earthly events that are expected in the messiah's life. (The link below contains a partial list of messianic prophecies, but there are many more.)

Now 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. But again, the ball's in your court. I've asked you to list a single example of a first-century Jewish movement that didn't believe the messiah to be a human descendant of David. Now it's up to you to do so.

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?

Paul seems to have gotten his Jesus from such a list of "prophesies". He never says this Jesus he found in scriptures became a physical man and lived with his peers.

He does say that the Jesus, who he learned about through the apostles and tradition, became a physical man.

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

Possibly at a later date. Right now I'm having a lot of trouble getting you to answer a few basic questions about this topic, so I'd rather not veer off to another one.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

I don't understand how you can make such absolute statements. Are you really telling us that there was never one single Jew in the first century who adopted any statement of any Greeks at any time? How can you possibly know that? Did you interview every single Jew in the first century, and determine that not one of them had ever had the slightest influence of any Greek thought ever in his religion? And yet you insist that there was no influence anywhere.

You seem to be commiting the Eskimo fallacy. It is like the person who said all Eskimos always walk single file, for he saw three Eskimos once, and that's what they were doing. Just because you can cite examples of Jews who resisted Greek thought, that does not prove your statement that there was "no influence of Greek thought on Jewish religion anywhere else".

I have cited several instance of Greek thought relected in Christian works, as well as references to Hellenized Jews in the Bible. How can you deny all that, and insist there was absolutely no influence of Greek thought anywhere else?

 

[AlexBP]

Big news. Just yesterday comes the announcement of what may be the earliest Christian documents yet found. Here's the article:

BBC News - Jordan battles to regain 'priceless' Christian relics

Philip Davies, Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Studies at Sheffield University, says the most powerful evidence for a Christian origin lies in plates cast into a picture map of the holy city of Jerusalem.

"As soon as I saw that, I was dumbstruck. That struck me as so obviously a Christian image," he says.

"There is a cross in the foreground, and behind it is what has to be the tomb [of Jesus], a small building with an opening, and behind that the walls of the city. There are walls depicted on other pages of these books too and they almost certainly refer to Jerusalem."

It is the cross that is the most telling feature, in the shape of a capital T, as the crosses used by Romans for crucifixion were.

"It is a Christian crucifixion taking place outside the city walls," says Mr Davies.

Obviously caution is warranted since there have been hoaxes related to biblical archaeology in the past. However, if these books turn out to be genuine, we will then have physical proof that the very earliest Christians believed in an earthly Jesus.

 

[razeontherock]

You might enjoy this thread, that explores your topic in the scholarly fashion you desire:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7548047/

It's posted in a C only section by a professing C, so you'll only be able to lurk there. The OP is someone I'm not familiar with and I really don't know where he is going with this, but many are upset with him supposing he is trying to discredit Jesus. He says he's been researching this for 4 years ...

 

[AlexBP]

I don't understand how you can make such absolute statements. Are you really telling us that there was never one single Jew in the first century who adopted any statement of any Greeks at any time? How can you possibly know that? Did you interview every single Jew in the first century, and determine that not one of them had ever had the slightest influence of any Greek thought ever in his religion? And yet you insist that there was no influence anywhere.

Let's recall what I actually said on the matter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hurtado also has a nice video discussion:

YouTube - LARRY HURTADO How did Jesus become a God
...
There was not a single Jewish community that inducted Greek ideas into its theology. Some may have brought bits of Greek culture into their culture, but that's entirely seperate from theological questions.

So I've laid out my reasons for believing that the early Christians did not allow religious ideas from Greek religion (or any other pagan religion) to mingle with and reshape their own religion during the second century. Of particular importance is the distinction between Greek culture and Greek religion. Some Jewish groups did partially adapt themselves to Greek culture, but as the citations I've given above show this did not mean adpoting Greek religious ideas in whole or in part. If pagan religion had any influence on Jewish religion, in caused a reactionary movement away from paganism and towards a stricter adherence to orthodox Jewish doctrine.

(There is nothing unusual about this in historical terms. In fact we can see the exact same thing occuring worldwide today. Many westerners have assumed that since we've done a good job shoving our culture into the Middle East, therefore those in the Middle East must as a result abandon their religion and adopt our values. But what we've actually seen is the exact opposite. Muslims are drinking Coca-Cola, watching Hollywood movies, and talking on cell phones, yet radical Islam is growing while moderate strains of Islam are in decline.)

The link that you posted to Wikipedia in post #278 generally confirms what Boyd and Eddy said on the matter:

Hellenistic Judaism was a movement which existed in the Jewish diaspora that sought to establish a Hebraic-Jewish religious tradition within the culture and language of Hellenism.

So that matches exactly what's claimed in the quote that I've posted above. 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.

So now on to the particular questions of the supposed link between Q and the cynics. You've already acknowledged that it's not an "established fact", but merely a hypothesis supported by some scholars. Then again the question becomes, where's the evidence? Let's recall some basic facts about Q. First, Q is a hypothetical document, not a real one; as I've said, I find its existence likely but not certain. Second, if Q existed, we don't know whether it was written or in oral tradition, we don't know if it was one work or two, and we don't know exactly what it contained. If may have included a great deal more material than what's formally called 'Q material'. This makes speculation about Q particularly hazardous. Certainly any 'Q community' is imaginary. There is exactly nill evidence that such a community ever existed, or that the person whose sayings are being recorded is anyone other than Jesus Himself.

What we do know about Q is that in some way some material from Q was known to both Paul and James, as it appears in their letters. Quoting from Dr. Blomberg's book:

Of all the New Testament epistles, none contains as many passages that verbally resemble the teachings of Jesus as does James. One need look no further than the first main paragraph of his letter to observe a pattern of allusions that remains constant throughout the work. ... These allusions embrace all three of Matthew's sources, Mark, Q and M, and three of the four come from the Sermon on the Mount. Both of these trends continue through the rest of the epistle.

As a result, many scholars have argued that James must have known the canonical Gospels, or at least Matthew. But there are good reasons for dating James very early. ... If this dating is correct, then the allusions to Jesus' teaching afford the most abundant and convincing evidence so far considered that the Gosepl traditions were known and applied very soon and very widely ub fledgling Christianity. James's form of the Jesus-tradition proves consistently closer to what scholars label the Q-form of the material unique to Matthew and Luke, rather than to Matthean or Lucan redactional distinctives of those sayings, further suggesting that James predates the written form of the Synoptics.

So there we see strong evidence that the community which produce Q and the gospels and the community which produced the epistles is one and the same. Blomberg also discusses the presense of Q material in Paul's epistles, providing further evidence for the same conclusion. In addition, quotes from the Q material appear in very early writings such as the Didache, 1 Clement, and Polycarp. Since the Q material was an integral part of Christianity from the very early years, that argues further against the idea of Greek cynic influence. Furthermore recall what I already posted.

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

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.) When I pointed out this shortage of evidence, you said:

OK, we differ on this.

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

So you can hardly expect me to take that as convincing evidence in favor of a link from the cynics to Q.

You seem to be commiting the Eskimo fallacy. It is like the person who said all Eskimos always walk single file, for he saw three Eskimos once, and that's what they were doing. Just because you can cite examples of Jews who resisted Greek thought, that does not prove your statement that there was "no influence of Greek thought on Jewish religion anywhere else".

Imagine this scenario for a moment. I see Eskimos walking single file on many occasions. I look up authoritative sources and find them overwhelmingly testifying that all Eskimos walk single file. Then somebody on the internet tries to convince me that Eskimos usually don't walk single file. I repeatedly ask that person for specific, verifiable evidence that this is true. That person responds by linking to a blog which makes the same claim and by insisting that there's a place called the 'R community' where Eskimos don't walk single file. I ask for evidence that the 'R community' exists and don't get any. What should I conclude?

 

[ElijahW]

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

No it’s not an assumption, it’s a necessity because you won’t speak for yourself. If you disagree with the understanding or theory of Doherty, then I would think you should have clarified those points by now.

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

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

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

Read some Plato. Try to get a basic understanding of the thinking back then so this stuff makes some sense to you. You’re not going to believe a random person online when it comes to this, (and you shouldn’t) you need to get reading on some platonic dualism and about form/particulars.

Basic rundown: For everything that is matter there is a corresponding form that is eternal. Every door or every apple, is a particular or copy of an eternal spirit/form/ideal. The nation of Israel had a physical side and an ideal side. The temple as well had a physical and an ideal aspect. This is what is meant “copies of the true things”. The material objects were understood as copies of eternal forms.

Ritual and sacrifice to the Greek philosopher was the sign of superstition. It was suggesting that the gods could be swayed and weren’t constant. The Hellenized Jews like Philo and Origen argued that the Jews weren’t understanding their rituals and sacrifices as trying to sway god but as recognizing the forms behind the ritual and sacrifice. The particular items in the sacrifice or ritual represented eternal forms and together the eternal forms created a spiritual/eternal church or kingdom.

One of the main things that was missing though was a particular instance to the spiritual king or priest. This is where Jesus comes in with his instance of the spiritual authority. With his life and sacrifice he aligns himself with the ideal king/priest.

The blood sacrifice as you understand it, as being a way of appeasing an anthropomorphic entity, is what they are arguing against.

See the OP.

Stop being lazy and address the issues you have with understanding how Christianity started with a historical sacrifice.

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

I’m not sure what your difficulty is. They were copying each other for why there are similarities in the texts. I don’t go with Mark being first, I like Luke. Do you think John was unaware of the synoptics when it was written or came first?

Which tells me nothing.

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

What exactly do you believe?

I think they refer to a new day, where the dead are raised, which I believe. There is also an ideal heaven, which is the opposite of the material realm, which I also believe in. The magical realm understanding that a lot of people have going on. I don’t believe in.

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

What exactly is the "rational" interpretation of Revelations?

I think it is metaphorical because I think it’s a vision trying to present the concepts symbolically that the writer feels will be in play at the end times.

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

Not as a metaphor but as an ideal.

Their faith and compassion was passed onto those whose lives they touched in a positive way and continues to live on after the founders of that faith has passed on.

No I don’t believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus, in the past. He appeared to them but like he appeared to Paul.

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

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

I’m not asking what Paul taught. I’m asking where you are getting this understanding that you are using to interpret Paul by. Do you understand the difference? If no one else that you know of thought the way you are suggesting in the NT then just say so, so we can move on.

Post #243.

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

So Peter and the community that followed after him were also magical heaven believers and Jesus was again just the password to get in. How was he going to reveal himself? As a person or by worldwide vision?

Ok, so it’s four gospels that are creating a fiction but believe in a real world change, attached to letters from different groups preaching that you can get into magical heaven with the secret password, Jesus. How many groups of people did the conspirators use material from that didn’t believe in the kingdom of God being established here? Paul’s group in Greece and Turkey. Peter’s group in… Jerusalem? The group that the writer of Hebrews came from… in Alexandria? How many other groups did the conspirators use to build their ideology from that didn’t believe in a historical Jesus but writing from were still used to support one?

And they did this because that’s all the writing that were available because they didn’t have any texts of their own that supported a historical Jesus. Then they added it to four fictional accounts of Jesus that they think is historical because they are unaware of the thinking of all those groups of people who think like you suggest that wrote the NT letters. And are also unaware that the writers were writing fiction in the gospels. Am I getting closer to what you think happened?

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

Yes, after I asked you to clarify. Your response is to my treatment of your theory before you answered my question to clarify about the kingdom. In your initial explanation of Christianity, that you love to keep referencing, do you mention or address the two different kinds of kingdom of god we are dealing with in the formation of Christianity?

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

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

It’s not metaphorical, it’s ideal. Your understanding of heaven that you have picked up from watching television is what I consider magical thinking, not the existence of heaven itself.
God is everywhere.

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

The resurrection of the dead. And not your understanding of the resurrection, where there is no actual resurrection, you just go to magic land to live with Wisdom and Reason who exist there anthropomorphically. Then and now, that comes from people taking art literally and education lightly.

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

What do you see that it indicates, if not a messiah claimant? Who does he think you need to be with or you’re against? Who is JtB asking about if Jesus is the one who they are waiting for, if not the messiah?

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

Any possibility you consider the story about trying to establish that kingdom? I know trying to understand Paul that way would undercut your theory but with the gospels you should consider what the point of trying to establish Jesus as king would be to people trying to establish that kingdom on earth.

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

We are assuming for sake of your argument that the location was in heaven, correct? That there is a magical place where spiritual entities exist temporally and one was killed that opened up a door so people could get in if they believed something about him. Something like that right?

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

Rom 8:22

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

8:20 “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”

It sounds like he had hopes for the creation to find a solution to its corruption. Why would the world be anxious for the resurrection of Christians if all it means is that Christians are leaving and going to magic heaven?

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

You are mixing up resurrection of the dead and an afterlife. One concept the Jews picked up from the Persians and Zoroastrianism. The other concept comes from Greeks taking their poetry literally, which you are suggesting was also picked up by the Jews.

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

Just to give people hope that he’s going to come back? Even though you think Mark is for establishing a kingdom of god on earth, his gospel doesn’t have any intended effect to help with that?

 

[ElijahW]

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

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

Faith and beliefs are not the same thing. You get the faith from those who raised you (usually) but your beliefs grow with you as your understanding grows. Like all Christians are united in our faith in Jesus but divided in our beliefs about him.

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

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

I still don’t know the answer to, if you think that the spirit of Israel should be understood anthropomorphically like you do Wisdom in Proverbs.

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

Then what is the point of four stories of a messiah that fails? And why so many groups, all over, that worship a messiah that exists only in heaven? Unless it was that an earthly messiah, that is victorious, was off the list of possibilities for those groups.

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

So they were all con artists trying to pull one over on their audience. So the conspiracy starts with the writes of the Gospel doing what they intended to do. Tricking people into thinking the guy in the story actually existed.

Yes, I have problems of my own.
Would you like to discuss my bunions?

The problems you have with understanding how this started from a historical core would be what are relevant.

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

You don’t think I have elaborated enough that the philosophers and the poets had different understandings of spiritual entities? Do I need to go into that further? What aren’t you getting? You realize they are in opposition to one another, correct?

Read the OP.

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

Then what problems are you having with why Matthew is responding to concepts introduced by Paul? I don’t understand your dilemma here.

Maybe several thousand, I don't know.

So he was still doing the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism with faith in Jesus as the messiah? The messiah is just only to have ever or will ever exist in heaven? And what happened to these groups? What writings belong to them outside the NT?

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

It’s about establishing a king who died for the people as the authority, so the people stop worshiping the kings who want the people to die for them. Getting rid of the authority was seen as the first step to establishing the kingdom of heaven, which would lead to the resurrection of the dead. None of this can start without the concept being introduced to the people of an authority figure dying for the people. Any difficulties understanding how his blood sacrifice is related to our salvation from the orthodox perspective?

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

Socrates introduces the trinity, in the sense of Father, spirit, matter. Philo is credited with the messiah being the personification of the Logos. The writers of the NT letters Collision Corinthians and Hebrews all are working with the idea of Jesus personifying the spirit. The history we assume from the evidence we have.



Now what about your conspiracy theory? When does Paul get used to explain a historical Jesus’ sacrifice and by whom?

Then read post #204.

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

Yeah it wasn’t sufficient in explaining how Christianity started. Sorry, keep working on it.


What do I need to explain, when I go with the church history we all know? What problems are you having in understanding the formation of Christianity coming from a messiah claimant sacrificing his life?

Yes, truth matters.

Thanks for the platitude but what does it matter if it was 30, 300, or 300,000 martyrs that planted the seeds of the church? What is your point in saying that they were exaggerated? What is the magic number you think they needed to achieve to spread the faith?

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

So how much or many of the persecutions of Christians in Foxe’s book of Martyrs do you think are made-up, until they start to tie into actual history? Your answer is too vague since you have “some” martyrs early on. Anyone you think is legit we would know of?

We have?

It seems to be the case. What person or text do you think you have an understanding of what they are talking about? You don’t know going on in the Gospels, you don’t know if Paul was superstitious or philosophical. Or if it even matters that you understand the differences.

yes

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

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

Can you see the difference?

No you didn’t. I can see the one comment you made. And that’s the problem. You aren’t trying to push or support this theory on the forum where people know about it. You are trying to take an idea from one forum and push it at another forum where people aren’t aware of the arguments made against it on the forum you got the idea from.


I don’t have a dispute with Doherty’s theory. Doherty doesn’t have the evidence to support his interpretations. That’s a fact. Just like you don’t have the evidence to support your interpretations that you got from Doherty is a fact. There isn’t any dispute going on. If you choose to accept that fact of go with denial is your choice.

 

[AlexBP]

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

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

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.
Compare what this letter says to what Jesus himself says in John 17:

“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.

Those match up quite well, and is only one case in which this particular letter parallels the language of John's gospel. Indeed I think a strong case could be made that the entire letter is structured around a series of references to John's gospel. However, there is an even more direct statement of the fact that the author of this gospel knew Jesus Christ to be a man, as opposed to an abstract idea.

As I have indicated, it is not an earthly discovery that was committed to them; it is not a mortal thought that they think of as worth guarding with such care, nor have they been entrusted with the stewardship of merely human mysteries. On the contrary, it was really the Ruler of all, the Creator of all, the invisible God himself, who from heaven established the truth and the holy, incomprehensible word among men, and fixed it firmly in their hearts. Nor, as one might suppose, did he do this by sending to men some subordinate—an angel, or principality, or one of those who administer earthly affairs, or perhaps one of those to whom the government of things in heaven is entrusted. Rather, he sent the Designer and Maker of the universe himself, by whom he created the heavens and confined the sea within its own bounds—him whose hidden purposes all the elements of the world faithfully carry out, him from whom the sun has received the measure of the daily rounds that it must keep, him whom the moon obeys when he commands her to shine by night, and whom the stars obey as they follow the course of the moon. He sent him by whom all things have been set in order and distinguished and placed in subjection—the heavens and the things that are in the heavens, the earth and the things in the earth, the sea and the things in the sea, fire, air, the unfathomed pit, the things in the heights and in the depths and in the realm between; God sent him to men.
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.

(emphasis mine)

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

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. For example:

Christians love all men, and by all men are persecuted. They are unknown, and still they are condemned; they are put to death, and yet they are brought to life. They are poor, and yet they make many rich; they are completely destitute, and yet they enjoy complete abundance. They are dishonored, and in their very dishonor are glorified; they are defamed, and are vindicated. They are reviled, and yet they bless; when they are affronted, they still pay due respect. When they do good, they are punished as evildoers; undergoing punishment, they rejoice because they are brought to life.

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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Big news. Just yesterday comes the announcement of what may be the earliest Christian documents yet found. Here's the article:

BBC News - Jordan battles to regain 'priceless' Christian relics

That is indeed big news. I am anxious to see what they find. Wouldn't it be great if these were genuine books from the first century, or new early viewpoints that had been lost?

Imagine we find Q. Imagine we find a version of Paul more clearly defining a heavenly Jesus. Imagine we find new books about a Jesus totally from scripture with no hint of an earthly Jesus.

Or imagine we find the recollections of an apostle with a completely independent, complimentary view of the gospel story. Imagine a personal account of Mary telling what it is like to raise the Son of God.

I've dreamed for a long time that we would find books that shed a whole new light on things. Yes, I am prepared that this will be disappointing, but I would love to see something new and dramatic revealed.

 

[GakuseiDon]

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.

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 ahistorical Jesus?

I think we can see more in this letter also. What does the author say about Christianity at that time? I'd be interested in where Merle places this letter chronologically, since it would provide a picture of how Christianity developed according to him.

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:

"[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..."

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

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!

Merle:
1. When do you think this letter was written?
2. What do you think the author means by "Christian"? Why is he using that term, and not referring to "Christ", either as sublunar being, or Logos, or as a historical man?
3. Do you think that this letter COULD have been written by a proto-orthodox Christian? Is there anything that would refute that option as a possibility?

 

[GakuseiDon]

That is indeed big news. I am anxious to see what they find. Wouldn't it be great if these were genuine books from the first century, or new early viewpoints that had been lost?

Imagine we find Q.

I'm posting a day late here in Australia, but should still be timely for those in the USA. Apparently the lead codices do contain Q! From here:
Duke Newt: Breaking: Lead Codices Revealed to be the Q Document

The lead codices found in Jordan have been identified as the Q document, a hypothesis no more.

Until today there was no evidence for Q except for the fact that Matthew and Luke have material in common that isn't in Mark, so this is obviously a huge find.

Read the full story here.
​

 

[woutyet]

that link goes to justin biebers wikipedia page when you go to the site to click on the full story. anyone have a link that's good from a reputable source. there are quite a few questionung the bbc on this, all i can find are blogs

 

[Johnnz]

We had the news report here too. Ours ended with a comment that it had yet to be evaluated by scholars, and that similar hoaxes had occurred previously.

John
NZ