Toto

You mean "trick" question? What does this have to do with anything?

The gospels describe an innocent man who was crucified to save the sins of the world by people who didn't know what they were doing.

Other people try to figure out who Jesus was, and then find a reason that makes sense. If Jesus was actually a revolutionary peasant who threatened the Romans, he was crucified for insurrection. If Jesus was actually a religious reformer, he was crucified for blasphemy.

If the gospels are symbolic, Jesus' crucifixion represents the suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of the Romans.

:huh:

aa5874

We have stories about Jesus Christ and Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, found no fault with him.

There is NO need for any more unsubstantiated fables.

What sources OF ANTIQUITY claimed Jesus Christ was a ganster or that the Romans thought so?

It is just incredible that people here IGNORE the written statements in the NT Canon and want to speculate about what they will NEVER EVER prove or establish since they too have ZERO credible sources.

In the NT, Tiberius was Emperor, Pilate was Governor, Herod was King, Caiaphas was high priest and Jesus was a Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God, and the Creator.

Tiberius, Pilate, Herod, and Caiaphas have been CORROBORATED as figures of history by non-apologetic sources.

Jesus Christ was NOT corroborated at all.

There is NO need to speculate.

Jesus Christ was MYTH.

avi

Welcome back, Archibald. Good to have your commentary, before us, again.

mashiach is cristou is christ, = "anointed", NOT MESSIAH.

Kings are anointed. Jesus, according to the story line, was murdered as a criminal, not anointed as a king, like David.

To answer your question, NO, I not only cannot explain when the fictional character Jesus of Capernaum/Bethlehem/Nazareth was first considered to have been a "messiah", I don't believe anyone else can either, since, so far as I am aware, NO ONE considers Jesus to have been the messiah.

Who, or what was a "messiah", Archibald? In my opinion, a "Messiah", was a person, not a god, who led an army of Jews against the alien invaders, ie. the Romans who had occupied Jerusalem. Did Jesus destroy the Roman army?

No? Did he, according to the story line, even ATTACK the Roman army?

No. He did not.

Then, how could he have been the "messiah"?

Jesus was never the messiah, even in fiction. Just some folks had trouble understanding the distinction between anointed and "saviour". The two words, in Hebrew, do sound very similar, especially to the ears of someone ignorant of semitic languages.

Cristou, the Greek equivalent of "mashiach", does not mean saviour. It does not correspond to messiah. It does mean "anointed", as in a procedure reserved for kings, like David!!!

Forget history, for there is none, Archibald, but, even in the story line, was there ever a moment, even for a day, when Jesus was treated as if he were the king of the Jews, someone who underwent anointment in a ceremony before the masses of approving Jews?

Cristou, in my opinion, was inserted into the text, decades, probably centuries, after the original epistle was quilled. I believe it was inserted as a bit of marketing hype, attempting to elevate the status of Jesus, to give him a loftier stature, in order to attract bigger donations to the church..

Yup, good question. I do not have a clever answer, but I do have a mundane reply, not really satisfactory:

Doesn't it work both ways: i.e. if Paul was written BEFORE the Gospels, why is there not any reference to the epistles in the Gospels?

I think the most reasonable scenario is this:

a. Gospels;
b. Paul
c. Eusebius cleans up the mess;

Here's hoping we uncover some papyrus somewhere, to convincingly demonstrate the actual sequence of events....We certainly need a document dated prior to the end of the third century, affirming the existence of Polycarp, Clement x 2, and Irenaeus.

avi

aa5874

There is a correction.

a. Memoirs of the apostles.

b. Multiple Gospels.

c. Forgeries, fraud, and deception orchestrated by the ROMAN EMPIRE.

avi

agree, thank you.

avi

GakuseiDon

Only if the starting position is that the Gospels accurately reflect the actions of sayings of Jesus.

That's my criticism of Doherty (and Wells for that matter): the flawed logic that starts with the notion that the Gospels are NOT accurate, and yet somehow Paul should be aware of Gospel content.

TedM

If that is their positions, it's a valid criticism. What it does is muddy the theory being proposed. It serves a purpose though which is to break down any walls of belief in the gospels that do exist in order to make one more receptive to whatever theory is being proposed. Whether intentional or not, this is psychological manipulation.

What would be more appropriate would be to test the expectations one would have for the more basic traits in a historical Jesus: How might we expect Paul to reference a human Jesus if that's what his Jesus was? Would it make sense for Paul to say this or not say that? and so on..

Ted

Toto

It's not a fair summary of either of their positions.

What does this mean? Are you claiming that it is only belief in the gospels that stands in the way of someone being manipulated?

I think that is what Doherty and others try to do.

Neil Godfrey has a relevant post on Geza Vermes' The Changing Faces of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk). Vermes is a thorough historicist who has written about the historical Jesus, but he reads Paul as a mythicist.

TedM

No. I didn't even say it was a bad thing. It is what it is. But, those being so manipulated may not be aware that the theory may look more right than it really is.




Just read it. Interesting. This is a bit misleading, because he wouldn't say Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, just that Paul de-emphasized Jesus' human side in his ministry, which served his own claim to apostleship well. Sounds reasonable to me. I've often wondered if Paul simply was never impressed with the human Jesus much also, as he never saw him in person, and the teachings he heard about may have been nothing new to him..if so this could have been another factor..

aa5874

Please name the second century writers that you suspect knew that the gospels were a recent invention and were allegory, not historical evidence...?

Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Aristides????

Who are these writers? Where are your SOURCES of antiquity for your "suspicion"

Are you trying to imply that whatever you SUSPECT is most likely true?

What an admission!!! Dave 31 must be shocked!!!

"A Lot of Doherty's arguments are speculative......."

Well, it won't take you much time to find errors in speculative arguments.