GakuseiDon

But isn't that because a prima-facie reading of Paul and the Gospels gives that idea? I thought that everyone agreed that was the reason people thought that Jesus was historical?

For the following passage, what is the prima-facie conclusion about Jesus?

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

I'm not sure that anyone needs to explain why the Christ referred in the passage above is regarded by Paul as someone historical. That's simply the prima-facie reason.

Now, deeper inspection may cast doubt upon that conclusion. But that deeper inspection hasn't hit modern scholarship, for better or for worse. So to say that no-one can explain why the question of Jesus' historicity is settled is remarkable. It's what the evidence that we have tells us.

I think archibald is right, Toto. The number of your statements that are nonsensical are increasing. Remember when you claimed something along the lines that the only criticisms people ever raised against Doherty was that he wasn't a credentialled scholar? Weird stuff.

Why don't we look at the Romans passage above and give a range of options on what it might mean, from a prima-facie perspective?

I'll go first: the prima-facie reading is that Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

What other prima-facie readings are there?

Toto

If by "prima facie" you mean "naive and uncritical" - but that's not how scholarship is supposed to operate.

Bart Ehrman is quite clear that the gospels and the New Testament are not reliable evidence. They are inconsistent and self-contradictory. They cannot be verified. No reliable historian would accept them as evidence for a historical event.

No, I don't remember either writing or thinking that. But I have noticed a tendency on your part to misrepresent me.

Sheshbazzar

And just which of the pseudo-'Paul's' would it be that actually penned that particular paragraph?
There ain't nothing trustworty to be found within the entire 'Pauline' corpus of forgeries and interpolations.
Garbage in leads to garbage out.

aa5874

How could you be so wrong??? Prima facie reading of the NT show that it is NOT credible.

It is the PRIMA FACIE hocus-pocus nature of Jesus in the NT that have caused BELIEVERS to search for an historical Jesus.

Believers, it would appear, want a NEW Jesus, not hocus-pocus Jesus.

The quest for the historical Jesus was INITIATED by those who did NOT LIKE hocus-pocus Jesus.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

You ought to know that the "historical Jesus" has been abandoned before due to lack of any credible sources.

It has ALREADY been acknowledged that HJ is the imagination of EACH HJ SCHOLAR.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

HJ is NOT about history it is about IMAGINATION.

J-D

I don't think that's a particularly good example for you. On the face of it, it doesn't mention Jesus at all. It mentions 'Christ', but that's a title, not the name of an individual. There are other texts in which the title 'Christ' is applied to Jesus, but we can't get that just from the passage you cite.

Given the origins of the word and the title 'Christ', what we have on the face of the text you cite is the author referring to an otherwise unidentified Israelite designated (by an anointing, which might be literal or metaphorical) for some special role in relation to the Israelites. On the face of the text, the 'flesh-and-blood' human (and Israelite) status of the individual referred to is being emphasised, the author wishing this not to be completely obscured by the more important point of the supernaturally designated role.

A striking feature on the face of the text is the use of the phrase 'according to the flesh' twice in such a short space. On the face of it, it's being used to emphasise a physical connection with the Israelites, of the author in the first instance and of the otherwise unidentified Christ figure in the second. Speculation about why the author is so concerned with that emphasis in the first instance interests me, but is probably beyond the scope of what's on the face of the text.

J-D

It is not only believers who have searched for a historical Jesus. There are also unbelievers who have searched for a historical Jesus.

GakuseiDon

No, by "prima facie" I mean "at first reading". What are the possible prima facie readings of this passage?

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all...

I'll go first: the prima-facie reading is that Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

Toto, what other prima-facie readings are there?

GakuseiDon

... which is why I am asking about the prima facie reading. Regardless of whether it is a forged passage or anything else, we can still say something about its prima facie meaning.

So what are the possible prima facie meanings? I'll go first: the prima-facie reading is that Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

What other prima facie meanings are there?

J-D

As I've already pointed out to you, there's nothing on the face of that text to indicate that the Christ referred to is Jesus.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I agree. Fair point.

Sounds good. Would the face reading be appearing to say that this Christ's physical connection is as a descendent of the Israelites? Would we say the same about Paul's physical connection?