outhouse

Im saying it would be unlikely, and to have these sources survive through roman redaction would be another.


add to that the movement was short lived in judaism

EarlDoherty

And you can feel free to read my responses to Ehrman on Vridar, which among rebuttals to just about every statement Ehrman makes, includes one (in Installment 27) addressing the question of the divinity of Jesus in Mark, with a close study of passages like the Philippians hymn.

Why is it that those who pontificate against mythicism in the most smugly closed-minded and high-horsed manner are those who are not only the most ignorant on it but adamantly make sure that they maintain their ignorance? But in all my years of encountering these ignoramuses, I don't think I have ever met anyone quite like you. You're disgusting, Abe.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

You are absolutely right, OH. No Roman or Greek or Jew ever deified such a figure. You've got it the wrong way round.

I think you need to install some indoor plumbing, OH. It might clear your head.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

hjalti, I should make myself clear. By "argument," I do NOT mean an appeal to the authority of Bart Ehrman, nor anyone else's authority. I mean an argument based on the ancient evidence. Resting on modern authorities may count as a useful shortcut, but, if so, one must be careful not to misunderstand the opinions of the authority! The "preexistent angelic being" interpretation is not "probably," but only the second of Ehrman's two possible interpretations, the first where Ehrman devotes the majority of his explanation and the only endnote, concluding with, "They [a large number of scholars] think instead that the passage is talking about Christ as the 'second Adam,' one who was like the first man, Adam, as described in the book of Genesis, but who acted in just the opposite way, leading to just the opposite result." The second interpretation is the one about the preexistent angelic being. Which interpretation do you favor and why?

outhouse

we would be in agreement then to some sorts.

I believe the jews deified him first, then we have the cross cultural oral tradition building the version Paul took to the romans

Toto

Please lower the emotional content here.

Toto

I have just reread Ehrman's section on this on Kindle, and it is a bit of a muddle. He favors the idea that it describes Jesus as an "angel" but he is quite sure that it does not describe a dying and rising god.

But then he goes on to claim that this is not the earliest description of Jesus - the earliest being speeches in Acts which preserved this earlier view.

This is just appalling logic. I see that I am not the only one appalled: Otagosh blog

tanya

Abe. Abe, that's silly.

Shogun may have just a few words written (i.e. spoken) in Japanese, don't you suppose? What, does that mean that Clavell is bilingual, and wrote his original text in Japanese and then translated it into English, copying the tradition established by the famous Nobel prize (1969) winning Irishman, Samuel Beckett, who translated his own work, En attendant Godot, from French to English?

But, Abe, are you then going to argue, especially if Clavell throws in a few Dutch phrases, that John Blackthorne, was a real person, living at the time of Tokugawa Ieyasu?

More to the point, do you intend to offer quotes from the text of Shogun as evidence in support of the notion that Blackthorne really did pilot a Dutch ship to Japan?

proudfootz

There were all kinds of communities.

I don't see much evidence of 'christianity' arising among Aramaic-speaking people.

Apparently it arose among hellenized jews and judaized gentiles (not necessarily Romans) outside of Judea - people whose grasp of orthodox judaism was probably rather weak.

proudfootz

Nice as it is to speculate about the possible existence of such 'sources' the plain fact is we have no evidence of them.

As I said, it appears that what we know as 'christianity' is a phenomenon of Greek literature.

Messianism - waiting, forever waiting - seems to be part of judaism. So that 'movement' is always with us.

The problem is when some group decides this or that guy is a messiah, there's disagreement and splitting, an oy! the shouting and stamping of the feet!

So sure, the many, many, many messianic 'claimants' and their cults die out in short order. Most likely because the things one needs to do to be a real messiah are impossible. Those that continue in such follies pretty soon stop being jews, as however many jews got suckered into christianity did.