I'll take a look.
Yes, which is why I take my opinions lightly.
Perhaps with some research. This was my impression based on past reading.
Perhaps 'fix' was a bad word. My point was that Matthew and Luke weren't satisfied with Mark's presentation. I was under the impression that they don't simply add material, but change some of the details found in Mark.
I'm not sure that we are disagreeing. We agree that Matthew, Luke, and John all had their own reasons for writing what they did and that they all include information that is not found in Mark. What I'm trying to discover is whether or not there is good evidence that this additional material derives from a Jesus that lived and taught and who formed the basis for Mark as well.


This view is not far from the notion that Christianity developed out of different social and religious beliefs which did not originate from Jesus. I suppose what I really need to look into more is the evidence that all the sources derived from the same historical events.


It was my impression that this sort of thing is commonplace in other religions, whether the original person existed or not. Keep in mind that the idea that Jesus is simply a myth is a new one to me. Hopefully the strengths and weaknesses of the mythicist arguments will be clearer to me after all these threads on the subject are concluded.

I agree with you. I understand that most scholars agree that there is a core truth to the stories. I am not sure though if this is simply a basic assumption of most scholars or whether many have really looked into the mythicist views.

I think you are right in considering Paul as being very much Jewish. I don't really know what this means though in terms of his ability to believe in a Greek-inspired form of Judaism. He grew up in Tarsus, didn't he? Wasn't Mithraism pretty influential in this city?

I'm thinking of what Christians call a 'high Christology' of Paul as being related to Platonism. I'm also thinking of the belief in layered heavens, and the references to 'mysteries'.
This sounds reasonable. I'm assuming that the various kinds of Christianity practiced during Paul's ministry were pretty similar. This is still consistent with the idea that the Jesus as fully human wasn't invented until Mark.
Oh? Were the Jewish people immune from Greek influence?

Sounds reasonable.

So it seems that Christianity was offensive to orthodox Jews no matter how you look at it.

Does Paul explain how Jesus fulfills the role of the Jewish Messiah?

Toto

Layman -

I am too overwhelmed by work to give you an immediate complete reply. (Do you actually work for a living? You seem to spend a lot of time on these boards.)

But it seems to come down to one set of authorities versus another. I am frankly unimpressed with your assertion that the overwhelming majority of scholars think that Jesus was a real person, since many of the people who pursue degrees in Biblical history are committed Christians and are employed by institutions with ties to a church. That even a few of them doubt the existence of Jesus as a person indicates to me that the issue is not settled. If you are going to take the attitude that the issue is so settled it's not worth taking seriously, what is the fun of discussing it?

I have read speculation that "James the brother of Jesus" actually referred to a James who was the leader of a group called the Brotherhood of the Lord, and not a biological brother or relative of Jesus.

Since all of the evidence is so fragmentary, it would seem to take a major leap of faith to think that the existence of Jesus is a settled question.

I may be able to get back to this topic later. But as I say, the existence or non-existence of the historical Jesus would not make much difference to me. It is just an interesting historical puzzle.

Thanks for the info. I'll look more into this.

True. The trick is to propose various scenarios and see how well they all hold up.

I understand what you're saying and it's a reasonable argument. I'm left wondering though... Whether or not Paul's letters were common currency, it would not be a stretch to suggest that the Christianity taught by Paul would be known by other Christians. In Doherty's scenario, or at least my version of Doherty's scenario, the sources that Luke is using to write his gospel and Acts are sources that support the idea that Jesus lived as a human. It would be well-known to Luke that forms of Christianity existed that denied Jesus was truly a human. So regardless of who wrote Acts, and regardless of whether or not Acts was written at the same time as Luke or later, it is still possible that motivation existed to portray Paul as supporting the notion that Jesus was a human.


Is Josephus quoted by many others between its writing and 250AD?

I don't think the existence of John the Baptist is in question. I was under the impression that Q gives virtually no details about the life of Jesus. I don't know what you mean about Paul, Mark, Q and John all developing the myth idea independently. Mark and John treat Jesus as having existed as a human. Doherty has Paul believing Jesus as being nearly human (lowest heaven) but not quite. I think Doherty pictures the Q community as adapting collections of wisdom sayings and parables to Christianity, and attributing them to Jesus. I don't have any strong recollections of how exactly Doherty treats the Q community. I need to reread those sections.


It does sound incredible the way you present it. I was under the impression that gnosticism was not restricted to Egypt. Wasn't gnosticism as heresy an issue during the second and third century with Christians outside of Egypt? If there were many different views about the exact nature of Jesus, I don't find it surprising that one of those views might be that Jesus was not really a human who lived on earth, and that Paul might support this view. And I don't think we have any clear records as to what later 'followers' of Paul did and didn't say. You've got me interested though in learning more about what records we do have on gnosticism and who was arguing what, when, and where. Do you have any suggestions for further reading?

Thanks again for your replies.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toto:
Did you even bother to read the excerpt from Doherty I pasted in above? Doherty discusses the precise language you did (house of David, born of woman, etc.) and ascribes Platonic meaning to it.

Doherty is a trained classical scholar, the sort of person you usually hold up as an expert. I am not absolutely sure that he is correct, but he does seem to have the credentials that you and I lack to read Greek texts from 2000 years ago and interpret them.[/font]


Meta => Than he should know better. The guy who taught me Greek was trained as a classicl scholar at Yale. He was not a Christan, was a professional classcist, and disagreed with that reading.


Metacrock - I cannot follow your argument. There are too many words I cannot figure out.


Meta => That's odd, you had no trouble reading my words in that other post, when you thought I was agreeing with you. I'm saying it ant so!

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited April 20, 2001).]

An appeal to expert opinion is not an appeal to authority. Expert opinion is always evidence. But that alone is not good enough evidence to prove the point. When an expert bucks the consensus of the field he has to have good reason. If Dhorty has scholarly credentials in classics, than he has some cliam to expert opinion. but since that does buck the consensus a great deal "extrordinary claims require extrordinary proof."

You've simply been caught red-handed. I don't blame you for not trying to defend such a double standard.

Nope. It's just that you aren't worth it.

That's such a broad, sweeping generalization that even you should be able to see that it is not correct. Toto summarized Doherty's position well, even if you don't agree with Doherty. You're simply trying to blackball your opponent here, deLayman. It's cowardly.

I might also point out that Toto did post specific links to Doherty's argument. You may not agree with that argument; fine.

But claiming that all Toto does is engage in appeal is patently false - a point that is obvious from even a quick glance at this thread.

Yes, he does, Liarman.

No, that is your camouflage rationale that you hope to sell to everyone.

The truth, however, is that you cannot afford to give up your habit of appeal to authority. It would remove your #1 debating tool - an outcome that you simply couldn't tolerate.

So as I said: I don't blame you for not trying to defend such a double standard.

Sorry Om, I know its hard for you to accept. But the breakup is official. You have demonstrated that you will lie to me and about me:

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000393.html

So. You are simply not worth it.