Steven Carr

So we must, like Doherty does, examine each case on its merits?

Is that Layman's position?

For example. if Jews claimed on the basis of the OT that bar Kochba was a son of David, we should examine very carefully whether a Christian claim by Paul that Jesus was a son of David was history or not, as we know that such claims about Davidic ancestry were simply inventions by Jews.

Layman, of course, has not produced one shred of evidence to show that Jews did not simply invent the Davidic ancestry of bar Kochba. He claims that it is history, but he produces no evidence for it.

So we can presume that Jews would simply invent whatever they felt the OT prophesied, and Layman's own examples are excellent examples of such invention.

Steven Carr

Layman wrote 'So, to conclude that early Christians were inventing stories because those stories bear similarities to the Old Testament is baseless.'

So is Vinnie saying it is NOT baseless to say that early Christians were inventing stories. Is there a basis to this claim of invention or not?

Once again, people on the thread write something and then go back on what they wrote. Why am I an idiot when I read a statemnt by Layman that claims of invention are 'baseless' and I assume he means that there is no basis to a claim that that there was invention of stories?

Were stories invented? YES or NO? Will Layman give a clear, unambiguous answer for once in his life?

It is SO frustrating for me. I read what people say. I try my best to comprehend, and then I get accused of distorting what people write.

So now I want a clear answer that even I can understand. I beg you, Layman, help me out here.

Did the Christians who wrote the Gospels invent stories? Yes or no?

Did Jews invent the Davidic ancestry of bar Kochba? Yes or No?

Layman

I hadn't notice that Doherty takes each case on its merits.

I explained my position.

Actually, the point was that bar Kochba was a real guy who did real things, such as lead a revolt against Rome, and because of those things he was described in light of messianic prophecies.

Nope.

Steven Carr

Layman refuses to answer straightforward questions, about whether Christians invented historical facts about Jesus.

He refuses point-blank to give any evidence that bar Kochba was of Davidic descent, yet still claims that when Jews said bar Kochba was of Davidic descent, this proves that they did not make up facts and say that these 'prophecies' from the OT were historical facts.

His very own examples show that people did invent stories based on reading the OT.

Indeed, his very own claim that Jews said bar Kochba was a son of David casts doubt on Paul's claim in Romans that Jesus was a son of David.

If one set of Jews can invent Davidic ancestry, why not another?

Layman

The key is the methodology. It is foolish to conclude that stories were invented based on the use of some OT themes or language.

Right.

That's not my point. I'm not claiming that because they sometimes described events in OT language and themes that they did not invent stories. I'm saying that when they did, that is not a basis for concluding they invented those stories.

I do not know whether or which Jews did regarding bar Kochba. But I'm confident that they did not invent him, his military victories, or the fact that he was renamed in light of Old Testament prophecy by Rabbi Akiba.

Layman

I refuse to get sidetracked in your ususal tangents you mean.

Have you proved any of these stories were invented? The Battle at the Tiber Riber? Vespasian's conquest of Jerusalem? Or Judas' battles in 1 Maccabees?

I can understand your skepticism about Jesus being of the line of david. What I do not understand is Doherty's claim that describing Jesus in this way indicates that Jesus himself is an invention out of wholeclothe scripture reinterpration.

If other Jews and Christians could descirbe actual events in OT language and themes, why not Paul?

Layman

Yes, I plan a couple more installments. One being showing where early Christians used Old Testament language or themes to describe real figures, such as John the Baptist, or real events, such as the Gentile Mission. The crucifixion would be in that group. It would be an exellecent example of how events caused Christians to reevaluate the OT and therefore find "new" messianic passages. Another example would be Jesus being raised on the "third day" according to Scripture. Amos was not seen in a messianic light until the event, or the story, caused Christians to reevaluate their understanding of OT passages.

Steven Carr

Is this Doherty's claim? Would Layman ever distort the position of another? I thought Doherty based it on the lack of references to the actions of Jesus in Paul or the other early writers.

Where does Paul interpret the deeds of Jesus in the light of prophecy fulfillment? (eg The Virgin Birth, or the birth in Bethlehem , or the 30 pieces of silver, or the people mocking Jesus at the crucifixion, or Jesus riding 2 animals into Jerusalem, or the Slaughter of the Innocents (where Matthew sees a prophecy fulfiillment)

Does Layman think that the throwing of the money into the treasury was based on reading the OT to look for prophecies? (I ask this question , as there is a small chance he might answer)

Does Layman think that the Davidic ancestry of Jesus was based on reading the OT, just as in his own examples of Jews claiming Davidic ancestry. for bar Kochba (I ask this question , as there is a tiny chance he might answer)

Toto

I don't think that idea is original with Doherty, nor that it is the basis of his case for mythicism.

Crossan speaks about "prophesy historicised." He thinks that the passion is 80% prophesy and 20% history. Burton Mack, not a mythicist, also seems to think that the gospel writers mined the OT for prophesies that could be turned into stories about Jesus.

Layman

The above methodology is an oft-used argument to deal with those passages that do mention Jesus. He has to go through those before he can arrive at his "lack of references" conclusion.

I did not limit this to prophecy fulfilmment. Nor did I, or Doherty, limit the argument to Paul. So this objection is irreleveant.

In any event, I gave several examples above. The most important is the crucifixion, but also being born of a descendent of David. Also, regarding Romans 1:1-3, Doherty argues "He is telling the Roman Christians that scripture contains the forecast of his own gospel, not the forecast of the Jesus and his life." The Jesus Puzzle, at 82. That Jesus was the son of GOd was derived from Psalm 2:7-8 Id., at 85. That Jesus was "born of a woman" was "under the influence" of Isa. 7:14. Id. at 99. That Jesus "died for our sins" and was raised "on the third day" are also learned from scripture. Id. at 79.

My opinion on this is hardly relevant to the topic.

"examples"?

Why you expect others to jump through your tangential hoops when you ignore all of their relevant questions is unclear.