Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
There may be numerous ways the Jesus story could have been manufactured and then believed to be authentic once there were gullible characters in antiquity.
|
It could be that this "unknown author" was actually a committee of authors and editors who relied upon a teaching tradition subsequently buried by the Catholic Church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Even in "Church History" a writer called Eusebius claimed he had a letter written by Jesus Christ to the Ruler of Edessa, King Abgarus.
This is "Church History" 1.13
|
So you are saying that the gospel of Mark was "found" and declared authentic in much the same sense that the Book of Deuteronomy was "found" and declared authentic during the reign of Josiah, or the Book of Daniel during the 2nd century BC?
You're right. This is "
Judeo-Christian History" 1.13
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
However, it is hardly likely or realistic that the Pauline writer could have been actually preaching to Jews in Jerusalem that a Jewish man was to be worshiped as a God and that the Laws of Moses were to be abandoned including circumcision.
The Pauline writings appear not to represent any history of the 1st century with respect to Jesus, the Jews, and the disciples before the Fall of the Temple.
|
It's hard to argue with you on this point. Obviously, the gospels are more Jewish than the epistles and the erosion of traditional Judaism would naturally occur
after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple - not before. But, by the same token, the god-man Jesus represents or came to represent or embody the hope of a renewed Judaism. And the likely catalyst for this process of hero creation was also the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.
01-20-2010, 03:04 PM
