Diogenes the Cynic

"Son of God" was just a Jewish honorific for kings, like "Anointed."

stephan huller

But Jesus wasnt a king and where is the evidence that 'Son of God' was PRINCIPALLY a messianic title? Psalm 2:7? Philo understood the term to apply to (a) the Firstborn Logos or (b) the 'man' in Genesis 1.27 (= the world) created after his image:

Son of God in the gospel developed from Alexandrian Judaism. Even the Church Fathers maintained a tradition that Mark and Philo were acquainted with one another. It doesn't make that tradition literally true but it is the best we have to go on in terms of a provenance for the gospel (= Alexandria).

stephan huller

A proctologist using the term asshole is different than you or i.

stephan huller

I don't understand this 'Son of God' argument Diogenes. Are you arguing now that the author of the gospel REALLY WAS trying to have Jesus recognized as a king, the messiah, the one like Moses? Why do such a bad job with the portrait?

stephan huller

Clement of Alexandria's Alexandrian gospel (not necessarily Matthew but the equivalent of Matthew 16.17):

Using our existing canon to figure out what the original traditions of Christianity used to develop their understanding of who Jesus was is like developing one's opinions about women as such from experience with sex trade workers. Yes, prostitutes are 'women.' Yes, the canonical gospels are 'gospels.' But both are 'adulterated.'

I don't object to Doherty's efforts any more than Ehrman's. They are all a waste of time because the texts of the traditions which said Jesus was the Son of God no longer survive. Neither canonical Matthew, Mark, Luke or John represent the gospel of the Marcionites, Ebionites, Valentinians etc.

stephan huller

I have the only viable explanation of why Jesus should not be understood to be human. It is based on something other than hatred for Christianity or wanting to see the religion fail.

MrMacSon

No, it's more likely to be Greek in origin.


The alleged 'Paul' could be from one of a number of backgrounds, including being a fictitious character; a literary device.


It has been frequently proposed that 'the movement' started to provide a belief system for the non-Jews, the Gentiles. There were dozens of various similar movements at the time - Docetism, Arianism, Montanism, Marcionsim, etc.

steve_bnk

...God, I am so sick of hearing all these stupid white people ..'

Right. Why are you bringing race into the issue? Chrisianity in all its variations is all over the world with all races. Christianity and the basic debates predate white European Christianity.

Why?


1. Christianty is a foudational element in western history. It remains so. It is an impotant part of pur history and current events.


2. It is hisory in its own riight, as is Egypt, Buddha, Mayans, and Native Americans. It is interseting.

3. It is useful for us non believers to understand the issues.

4. It beats talking about the British Royals or Michael Jackson.

5. Some here are more knowlegeable than others, but we are not exactly deciding the fate of human civilization. Some of us actually learn by partcipating. If one is so academically superior to the level of debate, I can see how one may be frustrated by rhose of us less capable.

6. Why get upset over something that has no resolution and no consequence.

In the end there is zero hard evidence of an HJ. One can inmvoke references and authors and resort to deteailed analysis of the original languages/traslations. But in the end it just a more formal basus for a subjective conclusion.


My reasoning is as follows. One looks today at the region wirth the social, economic, and religiious turmoil. Intense Jewish, Persian, and Aram nationaism.

The players and situations were different back then but it is not hard to image what it was like. Anti Roman sentiment was high as was Jewish nationalism. Sedition was in the air, war and armed rebellion eventually followed.

Jewish traditions evidenced in the OT was filled with prophets and seers, moralizers. Plus the supernatural. With the backdrop we o hvae an idea of, it would be improbable circa 2000 years ago that there would not have been itinerant rabais wandering around preaching doom and gloom. To me that makes the case for the NT JC being based on an historcal person or was a composite of a movement.

We only have to look around today to see ho myth can evoleve. Consider Scvientology which is filled with true believers. Hubbard createively synthesized Scientology from science fiction. psycholgy, and philosophy. Or the creaation of Mormonism.

Consideriung how we see it happening today with all or education and communications, it is not a major leap to see how back then a myth could evolve from an individual. From Christians I have known, there is widesprad belief in specific miraculous cures that none seem to have actually witnessed. If today, then certainly back then a tale of a faith cure could start and spread.

Literature evolves building on what comes before. The gospels as a completly orioginal fiction seems to me unlikey. Why would one set the stage on a Jewish rabai at a time when Jews were not excatly popular.

That is my reasoning in support of an HJ, not a proof which is impossible.

The Essene people were apocolyptc and ultra conservative were they not, preparing for a great cataclysmic battle between good and evil. There have been theoriues made that JC may have been one of them. One can make any number of cases.

steve_bnk

As I understand it, that would be serious blasphemy and a punishable offense

maryhelena

Oh, Stephan, Oh, Stephan - you also had the best explanation of Marcus Julius Agrippa being at the crucifixion of a historical Jesus - and look where you are now - a Jesus mythicist. Great that your now in the mythicist camp - but Stephan, take care that you don't go making assertions that you might have to backtrack on.....

And as for your continued Abe like assertions regarding "hatred for Christianity or wanting to see the religion fail" - they are totally out of place in this discussion on the HJ/MJ debate.