NOGO

Thanks for the response.

I believe that Doherty asks (and quite rightfully) why weren't sites such as Calvary and the tomb not become veneration sites.

You can ask the same question about a MJ but surely you can see the difference. The place where Jesus rose from the dead is far more important to believers than the exact place where the MJ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus.


From what Paul himself says, it comes from scriptures and a sense of inspiration.

This reminds me of something Layman said.
Layman claims that people in those days did not create myth from scriptures. Rather they interpreted historical events using scriptures.

I was planning to start a thread of this very subject.
Basically I wanted to list all the things that Paul tells us about Jesus which are clearly not historical. I did not have time to make a complete list but let me give you what I can come up with just now from memory.

Paul tells us that Jesus was given the title of Son of God when he returned to heaven (See Romans 1 and confirmed by Hebrews 1)
This happened in heaven so we are not talking history. I throw the question back at you how does Paul know this. Also please do explain why the Gospels says otherwise.

Paul tells us God will subjugate all enemies under Jesus' feet.
This is a future event which refers to a verse in a Psalm.

Paul tells us that a secret. We will not all die. First the dead in Jesus will resurrect then we who are still alive and the resurrected will join Jesus in the clouds and be with Jesus forever.
Where did Paul get this?

Paul tells us about the resurrected body. A notion which is very different and contrary to the Gospels description of Jesus' resurrected body. Where did Paul get this? Not from the Gospels.

Paul tells us that Jesus was sent by God to undo some error Adam had committed in the Garden of Eden.
Clearly Paul invented this from reading the OT. Neither the Gospels nor anybody else gives any clues that this was Jesus' mission.

Paul tells us that Jesus created the whole world. (same as John 1)
Genesis has Yahweh or Elohim creating the world.
I can guess at what Paul means but even then this is not interpretation of history. Paul is creating myth.

There are more.

So much for Layman and the claim of historical interpretation.
Paul is a myth maker or myth merchant.

Back to your question - where did Paul get all this stuff.

I suspect that some of it was already in place when Paul arrived on the scene. Some of it comes from scriptures as Paul himself says.
Since all Christians of the time believed in personal revelation as opposed to strict apostolic tradition then Paul felt free to add to the myth according to his newly found angelic mood (inspiration).

If that is not the case then please explain the points above.
Where did they come from?

Why should I believe, as your question seems to imply, that a few points which do concur with the Gospels establish historicity when so many other points do not?

rlogan

Sometimes all of us have an inability to distinguish between raw tripe and cotton candy.

The Myth-History Equivalence Theorem:

"Everything that applies to a myth also applies to history"


This is not cotton candy.

Ted Hoffman

GakuseiDon

Vork
Is it only me who can appreciate Vork's sarcasm?

Gregg
Gregg, why not just give us a few examples of these misstatements or enthusiasm carried too far and drop the patronising attitude?

Gregg

GakDon quoted this from Doherty:and stated, Although it's certainly possible that the opening of Paul's letter was subject to later editing, I don't think Doherty suggests this. I agree with Don, this is a weak argument on Doherty's part--I think he goes a little too far in his efforts to show that "the Lord's brother" doesn't have to mean sibling. The problem I have is that Don seems to be trying to imply that because this one specific argument is weak, Doherty's entire case is weak. But leave that argument out, and Doherty's case against "the Lord's brother" referring to a sibling is still strong--even stronger, IMO, with the single dubious argument eliminated.

Of course, Don regards the other aspects of Doherty's "brother" argument as "weak" and "unconvincing" also. What is consistently ignored is that Doherty doesn't intend for the argument to be convincing and conclusive in and of itself. Doherty's case is cumulative. He isn't trying to prove that "the Lord's brother" doesn't refer to a sibling--he's trying to show that there's no reason that it MUST refer to a sibling, and he does this quite effectively. When you combine this with all the OTHER evidence he presents to support a non-historical Jesus, the burden shifts to the HJers to show why we should believe Paul is using "brother" in a sibling sense in this particular verse when he doesn't use it that way anywhere else.

Ted Hoffman

Its amazing that you state that Doherty's case is cumulative yet are satisfied to use one passage to challenge his arguments.

Just to be clear:

1. It is simplistic to attempt to challenge Doherty's arguments regarding Paul's usage of the word "Lord" using one passage alone. Doherty's argument is built on several Pauline epistles including the OT.
GakuseiDon has not given his translation but if we are to use only one passage (as you have), here is the same passage and there is no usage of the title "Lord" in reference to Jesus.

Galatians 1 :: New International Version - UK (NIV-UK)

And this is just one translation out of over 15 of them.

2. Its also obvious that (a) the author of the epistles used the word ambiguously or that (b) after the interpolations/emendations, the usage of the word "Lord" is rendered ambiguous.

3. The ambiguity in (2) above is solved when one examines Paul's usage of the word "Lord" in other passages like Ephesians and in Corinthians to refer to God.

For example:
From 200 Missing References to the Gospel Jesus in the New Testament Epistles

Colossians 3:12-14

12Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. [NIV]

Doherty: What perversity could have led all the epistle writers to speak in terms of the qualities Jesus was reputed to have possessed on earth, to speak of the teachings he was recorded to have spoken, and yet consistently fail to make even a passing attribution of such things to him?
Does "the Lord" in verse 13 refer to God or to Christ? The Expositor’s Greek Testament observes that "there is no reason for referring kurios to God, since Jesus when on earth forgave sins." But that is reading the Gospels into it, and in fact here the term is almost certainly a reference to God. Not only has the writer just spoken of God in the preceding verse, he speaks of God forgiving the readers’ sins in 2:13. Even 1:14 has God doing the forgiving of sins "in the Son," the same idea as that expressed in Ephesians 4:32. One might also point out that since Jesus on no occasion forgave the sins of the Colossians, the writer would not have tended to express it thus. Jesus’ sacrifice made forgiveness possible, but its source was God.

Another example

Ephesians 2:20-21

You are built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, and Christ Jesus himself is the foundation-stone. In him the whole building is bonded together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. [NEB]

Doherty: A telling omission here. The foundation of Christian belief and the movement itself is the work of apostles and prophets like Paul. This entirely ignores the career of Jesus himself. Christ Jesus as the "foundation stone" is simply the object of the faith laid by the apostles. If Jesus of Nazareth had lived and begun the movement in his name, no Christian writer could have failed to designate Jesus as the initial, primary builder of the church. And where is Jesus’ own quote of Psalm 118:22, referring to himself: "the stone which the builders rejected has become the main cornerstone," as recorded in Mark 12:10?

And many other examples are available.

The solution to the ambiguity is that Paul, especially in passages wherein he borrows from the OT, refers to God as Lord. The later christians, undoubtedly influenced by the Gospel stories, amended several passages to refer to Jesus as Lord.

Paul's self-treatment as equal to the apostles as explained by Doherty below leaves no room that by "Lord", Jesus meant Lord.

Regarding Galatians 1:19, Doherty argues:

Which part of the argument, specifically, is weak?

Like I suggested, why doesn't Gakusei simply start a thread concerning the weaknesses of Doherty's thesis or the Jesus myth Theory?

capnkirk

Gregg,

Does Paul ever refer to anyone else, like Peter, as "brother of the Lord"? I know his "global default" reference is 'brother', calling attention to 'the brotherhood', but does he ever say "_____ , brother of the Lord" about anyone else? I don't think he did, and that argues in favor of some special appelation, unique to James.

Amaleq13

Unfortunately, a "special appelation", a marginal gloss or an alteration of the article before "brother" would produce the same unique reference.

I still contend that the strongest reason to doubt this as a genuine reference by Paul to James as the literal brother of Jesus is because that seems utterly contrary to his stated theology. If he believed the living Jesus had a brother, he wouldn't use a title referring to the Risen Christ to mention it.

capnkirk

Show me where Paul, on other occasions, said this about anyone else...and I'll concede the point.

Why not? Catholics all over the world refer to Mary as "the Mother of our Lord, Jesus Christ", and they certainly believe that she was human and literally the mother of a divinity.

Amaleq13

Said what? That somebody was the brother of the Lord? As I suggested, if this was a special title, we wouldn't expect it to be applied to anyone else. As I also suggested, changing the article (from "a" to "the") or the entire phrase as a marginal gloss would also result in a singular example.

They say that today repeatedly as well as repeatedly referring to the Gospel stories. This is quite unlike the situation with Paul. Also, when did Catholics start saying such things?

Even within the context of your views it makes no sense for Paul to suddenly decide to highlight exactly what he has otherwise entirely avoided (i.e. the TJC-HJ connection). When he feels compelled to refer to their "high reputation" he immediately follows it with a disclaimer. Shouldn't we expect at least that much if he felt compelled to state, for no apparent reason, the sibling relationship with the leader of his rivals? Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. There is no good reason for Paul to add such a claim and good reason to expect him to offer some counter if he did.

Gregg

Hey Jake...I'm on your side! I was only conceding to GakDon that Doherty might have gone just a tiny bit too far in arguing that "Lord" in Galatians meant God and not Jesus. But from what you say belowI may have conceded too soon.