Geoff Hudson

If Doherty says Rom. 3:1 is a reference to an eternal spirit being, he is getting warmer. But he goes colder if he says that spirit is mythical. The spirit is a very Jewish one, namely the Spirit of God, all supported by the OT - no need to invoke a mythical spirit.

The problem is David. He was introduced by an editor who wanted Jesus to appear human with a right to claim some sort of kingship.

In its original form, Romans 1:1-3 probably looked like this:

1)[Paul] {James}, a servant of [Christ Jesus] {the Spirit}, called to be an apostle and set apart for the [gospel] {Spirit} of God –

(2)the [gospel] {Spirit} he promised beforehand through his prophets in the [Holy] scriptures,…

(3)[regarding his Son,]

…who as to his [human] nature was [a descendant] {the Spirit} of [David] {God}
****
So the nature referred to was not human. The nature of the Spirit was that he was God's pure spirit.

There is a parallel in Heb.1:

(3)The [Son] {Spirit} is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his power.

There is another parallel in John 1:

(1)In the beginning was the [Word] {Spirit},

[and the Word was with God.]

and the [Word] {Spirit} was God.

(2)He was [with] God in the beginning.
****

So, there is too much editor's smoke here for there to be no fire.

Mythicism as a total explanation of Christian origins is a crackpot idea.

I hope the word crackpot goes into the glossary - its so useful.

Geoff

Ted Hoffman

"Could be said" is the key phrase. You can overstate the point and torture it to death but not even a drop of blood will come out.

Layman, have you sought the rugged hide of the mythicist bull and completely failed to find a weak point to drive your spear through?

Thats the feeling I get when I see you opening up threads only to quibble about tangential issues.

Perhaps you could write a review for Kirbys site www.didjesusexist.com after you are through with the book?

Vorkosigan

That would be great....!!!

Ted Hoffman

And then we will tear it to shreds.

Layman

I know what Doherty argues. He also believes that Paul believed Jesus was an actual spirit being who resided in the heavens and descended to the firmarment. But that belief is incompatable with the statement that Jesus was descended from King David. Again, HOW or WHY Paul believes Jesus was descended from King David is irrelevant. Such a belief precludes Doherty's version of Paul's beliefs. Rather, it demonstrates a belief that Jesus was, at least in part or at some time, human.

But even if you disagree with me on this, are you also stating that you know of no parrallels?

Layman

I hardly think a Pauline reference to Jesus that describes him as a human being descended from another historical person is "tangential" to the thesis of one who claims that Paul did not believe Jesus was human or ever existed on earth.

Bernard Muller

Jesus active on earth in a spirit form? This is not according to Paul, or the gospels, or even Doherty, who contends that Jesus never leaves heaven (he is crucified there!). Does Doherty say the heavenly Jesus was thought to have a spirit form? That's news to me.

And all came with extraordinary adventures on earth-like environment, which Paul did not describe. As a matter of fact, human-like Jesus is very understated by Paul:
Philippians 2:7-8 Darby "but emptied himself, taking a bondman's form, taking his place in [the] likeness of men; and having been found in figure as a man, humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and [that the] death of [the] cross.".
I do not see a mythological being here in the human depiction of Jesus, rather the opposite.

Wait a minute: if Jesus was crucified on earth (which is a good place for that), could he stay dead? Of course not, because that would be the end of it, and Paul & other "apostles" before him would be out of a job. So "Christ" had to stay alive somehow (but "out of sight" in heaven, conveniently!).
In other words, the resurrection is required, and not necessarily a mythological attribute to some savior god. And, of course, a human being would be born from a human mother & father, and have a human life, without stretching anything.

What case? Just because Doherty "discovered" godly saviors, does that means a HJ (my definition for 'historical' in "historical Jesus" is 'having lived in the past', based on the Collins English Dictionary (Canadian Edition), "belonging to past", and with 'Jesus' being the name of the man credited to have started Christianity) had to be a savior god right from the beginning? Religions develop after the alleged founder is dead, as a rule.
Actually, it is of no surprise "Christ" developped into a savior god (and resurrected, of course, he had to stay alive!), because few would be interested in anything else. The early Christians wanted to be saved from an apocalyptic "end" they took for granted and a (dead) Jesus had to be elevated to a god to guarantee salvation for the elects. Back to evolution, which, in my views, applies to religions as well.
I note Doherty, like most apologists and theologians, thinks Christianity appears instantly as a block (from a mythical concoction or a **historic** Jesus). Just looking at Paul's letters and what followed shows otherwise.

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

Are you saying that Earl doesn't allow for diversity and evolution in the early church?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

As far as Doherty is concerned, I meant for the starting "block": a secret cult based on a mythical savior god crucified (or only sacrificed) & resurrected, all of that in heaven. I do not doubt Doherty allows for diversity & evolution after that.
My point is, if there was evolution during Paul & afterwards, the same could have occurred before Paul, who inherited of a resurrected "Lord" Jesus, who somehow had some saving power through his death. That's apparent when we look at 1Thessalonians, his first letter (I reject 1:10 & 2:15-16 as later Christian interpolations. I can give you the reasons if you wish: I specify them already on my website)
Best regards, Bernard

PS: I said "only sacrificed" because I think Doherty entertains the concept Jesus as executed on the altar of the heavenly temple, as "extrapolated/imagined" from parts of 'Hebrews' (according to what I recall from my debates with him on 'Jesus Mysteries' list)

MortalWombat

Doherty does not think that Christianity was invented out of whole cloth. He does write about the precursors and roots of Christianity. For example, see his section WHO WAS CHRIST JESUS?

Also see his sections on THE ODES OF SOLOMON and TRACING THE CHRISTIAN LINEAGE IN ALEXANDRIA