Layman

Well, when we start with the proposition that Doherty is right that there is no historical Jesus and that Paul only envisioned a heavenly messiah figure created out of the OT, then I suppose we'd conclude that there was no historical Jesus and that Paul created his heavenly messiah figure out of the OT.

I'm not sure how that moves the ball in any direction, though.

spin

That's just as viable as assuming that there was a historical Jesus, isn't it? As there is no evidence for a historical Jesus (I'm not saying there was or wasn't such a person as Jesus who was in some way related to the gospel account, just no evidence and I know what's available), yet the vast majority assume that there was a historical Jesus, the dialectic that Doherty engages in by taking the opposite position can only be useful to believers.

I was merely saying that I don't think your response to NOGO was valid or useful.


spin

Layman

Whether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant to whether the use of the OT itself is sufficient reason to cast doubt on particular passages.

You have yet to explain why. Nogo is basically saying that if the Jesus myth is true then we should consider the OT to be the source of that myth. Fine. That's irrelevant to my post.

spin

I thought that I had explained my position, ie that OT passages are not sufficient.

You are making a parallel with Paul's use of HB materials. You need to justify it, for example, by refuting NOGO's analysis of what Paul was supposed to have been doing with his use of HB materials.


spin

Layman

I'm not even sure it's probative.

In other words, I have to prove Doherty is wrong before I can prove his methodology is questionable?

And I did not notice any "analysis" from Nogo. As usual he just fawns over Doherty's theory and assumes it is right.

Vorkosigan

____________________________
LAYMAN:
Since I have offered verses where Paul (as well as the author of the Gospel of Luke/Acts) himself interprets past events according to the OT, including his own conversion, call to the Gentiles, and escape from Damascus, your "point" has already been refuted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VORK:
This "refutation" has two major problems. First, the gospel fantasies are not "interpreted" but invented from the OT. Big difference. Second, whatever you call them, your position offers no content analysis -- evidence to show that a particular event in the life of Jesus actually occurred, and was not simply called into being by particular theological and political readings. We're on three years now and you have offered no methodology for doing so. Unsuprising, that, since NT scholars don't have one either.
____________________

My response is a direct reply to your claim that showing that Paul understood his life in terms of the NT somehow proves that the Gospels are the same. They are not. The Gospel fictions appear to be invented from the OT. A different situation altogether.

For example, where Matt confuses the number of animals in the entry to Jerusalem, or where Jairus' daughter is raised, etc, these events do not appear to be understood in the light of some OT event, but rather. are invented from it, sometimes down to the very words.

What you would have to do is show, instead of merely claim, that the use of the OT is only a gloss over real events. Have you some method of doing so?

Vorkosigan

Layman

I made no such claim. Please find a more appopriate thread for your arguments.

spin

When people who haven't done the footwork to go beyond the assertion that Jesus was a historical person ask how else such a story could have been invented, one shows that it doesn't take much at all, given the existence of HB pointers to a hypothetical construction around them. This is what I was dealing with.

I haven't commented on Doherty.

You took only one possible explanation of how Paul was using HB. NOGO apparently supplied another. If he is correct, then your approach to the problem doesn't seem well-founded.

I don't have a long history of following the ins and outs of this sort of debate. I just skimmed the particular thread and found the thought which led up to your criticism of NOGO's statement, which criticism I found wanting.


spin

spin

Incidentally, Layman, as both Luke and Acts are composite works, on what solid grounds do you talk of the author of the Gospel of Luke/Acts? What exactly might this author have written according to you? Did he only redact the various materials in Acts? Did he rewrite the main text he had at hand, working in his other major source? Who wrote what and how do you know?


spin

Layman

Perhaps if you dealt with the topic of this thread we'd avoid misunderstanding each other.

All I've done is show that similiarities to themes and language of the OT is not itself reason to doubt such passages refer to real events.

Obviously your cursory review of the issues has not equipped you sufficiently to comment on the OP's argument. You and Nogo seem to be suggesting that we cannot discuss methodology until we have concluded there was or was not a Jesus. This is putting the car well before the horse.