Jayrok

Link to MP3 of Lecture


Much of his talk is burning down a strawman of The Davinci Code and Dan Brown and The Jesus Seminar.

He says that the majority of Jews expected their messiah to be God's son and much like Jesus is portrayed in the NT (i.e. could heal the sick, raise the dead). And only after the sacking of Jersalem in 70 CE did they change their perceptions of the messiah they were expecting. They did this because, according to House, the messiah they had invisioned was too much like Jesus.

He also talks about the Talmud and how he sees it pointing to the NT story.

He burns another strawman with J.D. Crossan's claimed idea of a contradiction regarding Jesus' birthplace. He stayed away from the contradictory portion of that story and said there was a difference in a house and a manger and that the wise men weren't at the birth. Well duh.

His lecture presupposed the historicity of the NT accounts and Acts and dealt with the idea that there was controversy over Jesus' divinity up to 300 years after his alleged death/Rez. He claims there was no arguments in the early church over Jesus' divinity, etc. All this was to refute Dan Brown.

He also mentioned pagan mystery religions and their relationship with Christianity. He claims it wasn't until well after 200 CE that these stories of pagan god-men rising from the dead, etc. Ergo it was those religions who borrowed from Christianity (Like Holding claims). Wasn't there an early church father who said something to the effect of Satan created mystery religions ahead of time to make it look like Christianity borrowed the idea or some such?

At any rate, I was wondering if there are any comments on the lecture. I was given this as a solid piece in support of apologetics from a Baptist minister. I'm already working on comments for him from my take.

I wasn't sure about the Talmud claim and the claim that the Jews expected a messiah just like Jesus. No rabbi I've ever read said as much.

Toto

That was Justin Martyr.

Is there some text version of this?

Jayrok

I'm not aware of a text transcript, sorry. Thanks.

Steven Carr

Paul wrote before 70 AD, and he never mentions any of those things as being things Jesus did.

So why did early Christians think that Jesus was the Messiah?

Huon

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...m#P3596_621006

The First Apology of Justin

Chapter LXVI.-Of the Eucharist.
And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a143 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.144 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,145 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.