archibald

In the case of the gospels, maybe (though my opinion is that they are more likely to be literary additions than entirely literary) but in the case of Paul, and anything which appears to be pre-Pauline, or very early from elsewhere ('Q')..........

archibald

Short of time Maryhelena. Just time to note that you have strayed into sounding far too sure. :]

maryhelena

Very sure, archibald, very sure.....

The alternative is just too ridiculous for words....

archibald

I can't see it as any sort of dilemma at all. He could easily have been a neglected figure, only initially 'remarkable' to a small band of followers. Seems to be the norm for fledgling messianic claimants.

Yes, others may have made a bigger initial splash, at the time. Had more followers etc. But that does not introduce a dilemma, any more than the equivalent 'dilemma' in the opposite direction, if he didn't even exist, why did people start to think he had? Sure, you have rumour and urban myth, but that doesn't seem like enough to fully explain the fervour which the very early followers seem to have had.

Who said that nobody remembered anything he said? There were numerous stories, from different sources.

Anyhows, people worship other people. It doesn't mean they've actually done anything miraculous. Says more about peoples' superstitious willingness to find someone to follow. :]

He had heard of the followers and had met some of them, possibly he was antagonistic initially. He changed his mind. He joined the initially small band. He was an early 'convert'. What's not to fathom?

I have the feeling the 'dilemma' is more to do with how it bacame so big, not how it started out. In that case, we must remember not to view it from our perspective.

He had a very convincing hallucination.

On the contrary, there is lots. In 'Paul' and 'Q'. Arguably also in the Gospels, including the non-canonical ones (Gospel of St. Thomas, for example).

Oh sorry, I missed it. You slipped in the word 'ordinary' there. :]

Cheeky.

And what there isn't, as I keep saying, is any evidence that any ancient group thought he didn't exist. unless someone is waiting in the wings with info that I am not aware of. :]

archibald

There have been stacks of messianic claimants from past times, maryhelena. Some of them are still worshiped to this day. It's not unusual at all. As such, your personal conviction regarding ridiculousity seems unwarranted by actual evidence.

maryhelena

Unusual - that's not the issue - it's the ridiculous that's the issue...

It's not messianic claimants you should be concerned about - it is about what historical figure, living during the time of Pilate, who could have been viewed, by some Jewish people, as a legitimate and successful messiah figure.

Two messianic models to consider: The Davidic messiah figure is the warrior king model to free the Jews from the Romans. No such figure was successful at that job during Roman occupation. Any such attempts by starry-eyed messianic hopefuls could only end in disaster. The David and Goliath story had had it’s day. But the Davidic messiah model is not the only model that can be discerned from the OT. There is also the Joseph model. The man sold by his brothers who became second to Pharaoh in Egypt and was able to provide help to his family in troubled times. And that death-bed prophecy/prediction/blessing of Jacob – indicates that the time would come when the sceptre would depart from Judah – and that it was Joseph that would be the prince among his brothers. A non-Davidic messiah figure. A non-warrior type messiah figure. A messiah as a man of peace instead of a man of war. A historical Joseph type messiah figure - rather than those revolutionary firebrands....and No, carpenters can still not apply....

archibald

Thanks for summarizing the stumbling block for the Jews.

archibald

Sorry mh, but it is completely irrational and without reasonable foundation to be sure about such things. That bare fact worries me more than anything else about peoples' views.

maryhelena

Methinks not - can't fool the Jews re their messianic ideals....

maryhelena

archibald, there is a difference between being sure about something and being dogmatic about something. I am sure that there was no historical gospel JC - but if historical evidence was produced I would have no problem in accepting it.

Personally, I find it very helpful to have a starting position from which to work. I don't like going around in circles - which is often what happens when one is undecided about something. I prefer to take a position, run with it as far as I'm able - and if problems arise I'm more than willing to change course.