Logical

Millions of Christians believed the Jewish authorities "killed" Jesus while also believing it was the Romans who did it. That is not an incoherent idea, if you believed the Jews collaborated with the Romans to have him killed. That is not an outlandish reading.

Duvduv

It would appear as if in Mark the referent is the Son of Man whereas in Matthew it becomes the Baptist. In some strange way Matthew connects the suffering of the Son of Man to the Baptist as Elijah without knowing whether there is a Jewish scripture for this. Although it may just be a general observation that aside from being the precursor of the Messiah in his first lifetime Elijah had to suffer at the hands of AHAB, and lived in a cave to be fed by crows etc.

In any case, it would presumably be clear from the epistles in Greek that the grapha refers to religious scriptures of the Jews merely given the fact that the epistles refer to the patriarchs and Moses, etc. that any reader would make that assumption.

aa5874

Your claim is unsubstantiated. The Pauline writer NEVER did mention the Logos and used the name Jesus over 150 times.

An analysis of the Pauline writings show that Paul's Jesus was from the Grave.

The Pauline Jesus is the First Born of the DEAD.

The Pauline writings appear to be mere ANTI-MARCIONITE compositions which is Compatible with the DATED P 46 about mid 2nd-3rd century.

The Pauline writings when analysed show that the authors are attempting to claim Jesus had a Bodily Resurrection--NOT a Spiritual one.

The Pauline writings made the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus the most significant event and FAR more significant than the supposed miracles and life of Jesus.

The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus is the fundamental basis of the Pauline gospel.

The Pauline writings are simply ANTI-MARCIONITE.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

EarlDoherty

So now we have a postulated “if” scenario, for which there isn’t the slightest evidence in the texts, used to support a reading of a statement in the text which denies the straightforward meaning of the words, and for which, no matter what interpretation is put upon them, there isn’t the slightest corroboration anywhere else in the first century non-Gospel documents, either in Paul himself or any other writer.

That, too, is a practice indulged in by standard historicist scholarship. ‘Prove’ or support a point by postulating or assuming some other situation for which there is no evidence in the actual texts.

Show me where in any other passage by Paul he even intimates that the Jews had anything to do with the death of Jesus, let alone that they directly killed him. You can start with Romans 11, where the Jews are accused of killing the prophets. Did I miss the verse where Paul includes Jesus in the list of those killed by the Jews, either directly or indirectly?

I guess 1 Cor. 2:8 indicates that Paul thought that the demons were indirectly responsible for Jesus’ death. If 1 Thess. 2:14-16 is authentic, then Paul obviously thought that the demons indirectly influenced the Jews, who then in turn indirectly influenced the Romans to kill Jesus. It’s a wonder Paul was able to keep all that tortured path to responsibility straight.

It is not the idea itself that is incoherent. Countless Jews were murdered throughout Later Antiquity and the Middle Ages for being “Christ-killers.” But let's not forget that what the medieval mind in using that term was reacting to was undoubtedly the portrayal in the Gospels which had the Jewish crowd demanding Jesus be crucified, and even, in Matthew, taking on the responsibility for it. Are you going to claim that such a scenario was historical, and that Paul could have been exposed to it?

What is incoherent and outlandish is attributing a later idea like that, when a whole society immersed for centuries in the Gospel story could scapegoat already hated Jews, to Paul and reading it into 1 Thessalonians when there is not the slightest indication anywhere else in the first century and into the second that the Jews were held in any way responsible, or when passages like Romans 11 and 13 indicate that no such responsibility was in anyone’s mind.

As I said before, historicist scholarship is shot through with fallacies and unsupported assumptions like these (as is much of the HJ crowd here). That's the real historicist methodology. My criticism still stands.

Earl Doherty

outhouse

stands where? maybe you didnt notice Ehrman tapping dirt on your grave in his last book

your statements are false


the speration from judaism was far more prevelant with gospel authors over that of Paul.


Paul wrote about paul and his version of the movement which had little to do with the original movment strickly within judaism.


later authors/scribes gave us more details of jesus based on cross cultural oral tradition when the movement was more of a gentile movement.



there is a clear speration from judaism that evolved away in all the material we have to work with.

Solo

The fact of the matter is that this "misinformation" was circulated by his political handlers for sixteen years. Make of it what you will !

I did not say Obama made the claim himself.

Best,
Jiri

Diogenes the Cynic

It was not "circulated," it was erroneously put on a little-read website bio, and nobody noticed it.

Adam

Nevertheless, you cannot honestly any longer state that we have no name of anyone who wrote in Aramaic an eyewitness account of Jesus. No, you don't have to read my stuff, but your refusal to do so invalidates your authority to tell people here not to read me. No one has yet resumed spin's partial attempt to refute me, and none of you here can rely on Consensus scholarship to dismiss me. Someone needs to make the attempt or cite scholars who have already done it. Particularly needed is someone to engage me on my thread discussing my scholarly article

Significance of John
where I have Posts #102 and #103 needing replies from Vork or anyone.

Solo

There were no commercial websites in 1991. The error was first recorded in a booklet published by Acton & Dystel, Obama's literary agents. Jane Dystel moved on creating a new partnership (Dystel & Goderich) on whose website the same mistake was propagated later. According to the late Andrew Breitbart, she remained Obama's agent despite the flop.

Best,
Jiri

andrewcriddle

Hi Earl

I think we are possibly arguing a little at cross purposes.

I was responding to the argument that even if Paul knew some early form of the Gospel account of the crucifixion, he would not have written 1 Thessalonians 2 14-16 because the canonical Gospel account makes the Romans not the Jews responsible for Jesus' death.

This argument was IIUC made earlier in the thread and has occurred in the academic literature, where it has been suggested that the supposed interpolator in Thessalonians was influenced by the exaggerated ideas of Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death found in post-canonical works such as the Gospel of Peter.

You appear to accept that the canonical Gospel account is sufficient to explain the passage in Thessalonians, but regard it as highly unlikely that Paul knew even an early form of this account.

Andrew Criddle