Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 11-14-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
What positive evidence do you have proving a significant part of Q was generated prior to the writting of GMark? And what part would that be? And what do we know about that mysterious pre-GMark Q community? Looks like a lot of unsubstantiated theories to me.

I absolutely agree that these things are speculative in nature. (BTW I use the "q" spelling of my screen name rather than the "k"

)

Quote:

...where is this resurrected Messiah in Jewish beliefs? And where does he die?

I think you would be better off actually consulting Doherty's book on this subject (or at least his website) rather than rely on my understanding of it. It is the part I had the most difficulty with.

Quote:

For the same reasons, Paul never used "born" for Jesus (which would deny pre-existence), but "come".

I'm not sure I understand. How do you understand Paul's belief regarding the "mechanics" of the incarnation? Was Jesus born or did he just come into existence as a human?

Regarding Paul's failure to provide an historical context, Muller wrote:

Quote:

But why would Paul want to provide that context (assuming it was not yet known by his audience, which probably was not the case)?

I assume that if he had "wanted" to, Paul would have. It is simply unfortunate for the historical position that he did not. What I find compelling is the absence of any casual reference that provides an historical reference. That Paul could write so much without giving us anything seems bizarre to me if I assume an historical Jesus.

Quote:

Do we know of any spiritual (heavenly) descendants of David?

How could Paul have considered the pre-incarnate Savior to be the Messiah without also believing him to be Jewish and "somehow" a descendant of David?

Quote:

More so that for Paul, Jesus as a descendant of David is not important (only one occurence of it in his epistles, in the one considered his last of the 7).

It may not have been important for Paul but it was part of the traditional Jewish expectations, wasn't it?

I asked:
Do you know of any historical figure at any point in history where an author writing about him felt compelled to declare he had been "born of a woman"?

Muller replied:

Quote:

What striking here is the argument is "proved" by the coming of Jesus, not his death or resurrection. And Paul did not feel he had to explain that coming was unseen by humans because it happened in another world.

What other world? How is this different from Doherty's proposal involving the incarnation taking place in a spiritual realm?

Amaleq13 · 11-14-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Here is where the miscommunication starts. When I say Jewish mission I meant the one that took place in Palestine on Galilean soil. The earthy Jewish mission of Jesus , traditions of which can easily can be shown to predate Mark (ca 70 c.e.).

Could you provide the specific verses you consider to represent this tradition so as to avoid any future confusion.

Thanks in advance.

Vinnie · 11-14-2003, 12:47 PM

Start with the controversy traditions above from Mark 2.

Vinnie

Amaleq13 · 11-14-2003, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
What are your references for James having a "fabulous reputation and popularity with fellow Jews"?

Are you a teacher? I ask because you are killing me with all these homework assignments!!!

Several early Church Fathers refer to James as well known and respected for his piety. In fact, there appears to have been an early belief that the destruction of Jerusalem was the direct result of his murder.

I think Zindler's book, which I am currently reading, just mentioned these references so I could add this to my list of tasks.

Layman · 11-14-2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
[B]Are you a teacher? I ask because you are killing me with all these homework assignments!!!

Sorry, not my intent. And don't worry about it because you've answered my question. You are relying on later Christian writers. Personally, I find little that is trustworthy beyond Josephus' reference to James.

Do you accept that one?

Amaleq13 · 11-14-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
But Paul in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 is refering to earthly, not heavenly, rulers who put Jesus to death.

I disagree that this is a necessary interpretation and the scholars Doherty lists (none of whom is a mythicist) support that view.

The reference to "rulers of this age", according to these scholars, is best understood as a reference to the demonic powers believed to rule the earth.

I accept this argument even within the context of an historical Jesus. Within that context, I would assume that Paul believed these demonic powers drove/inspired the earthly executioners to their actions.

Layman · 11-14-2003, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I disagree that this is a necessary interpretation and the scholars Doherty lists (none of whom is a mythicist) support that view.

It is the most likely and reasonable interpretation.

Quote:

The reference to "rulers of this age", according to these scholars, is best understood as a reference to the demonic powers believed to rule the earth.

I know, but I've looked into it myself and am convinced that this interpretation is not only unlikely, it's unreasonable given the context.

Quote:

I accept this argument even within the context of an historical Jesus. Within that context, I would assume that Paul believed these demonic powers drove/inspired the earthly executioners to their actions.

I actually agree that if interpreted as Doherty wants it is no threat to a historical Jesus. But the opposite is not true. If translated as I think is reasonable it is deadly to Doherty's case.

BTW-thank you for the good natured way in which you respond.

Amaleq13 · 11-14-2003, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Sorry, not my intent. And don't worry about it because you've answered my question. You are relying on later Christian writers. Personally, I find little that is trustworthy beyond Josephus' reference to James.

Do you accept that one?

Now I feel like I just had an assignment cancelled! See, it can work in your favor!

I think there is good reason to suspect that all references to Jesus in Josephus are interpolations but I am willing to accept that it may have contained a reference to "James the brother of the Lord" with "Lord" being a reference to God.

Amaleq13 · 11-14-2003, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
You have got to be kidding. Every reference to "born of a human" is used to refer to other human beings.

They are references to humans in general and not references to specific individuals.

If I understand Doherty correctly, Paul believed Jesus took on a human form but only in a "fleshy" spiritual realm.

Layman · 11-14-2003, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I think there is good reason to suspect that all references to Jesus in Josephus are interpolations but I am willing to accept that it may have contained a reference to "James the brother of the Lord" with "Lord" being a reference to God.

Since Josephus does not mention "James the brother of the Lord", but instead refers to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," I think your memory is deceiving you here.

You know that very, very few scholars reject the 20.9 reference in Antiquities?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-14-2003, 12:47 PM	#63
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Start with the controversy traditions above from Mark 2. Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.