EarlDoherty

You are missing a couple of key distinctions here. One may not find an *intended* crucified Messiah in the Hebrew bible (at least, that would be *our* judgment), but that doesn’t mean that some exegete (like Paul) couldn’t find something which he judged pointed to a crucified Messiah. And that is precisely what the epistles tell us: Christ and his activities are to be found in the scriptures (Isaiah 53: he was pierced for our transgressions; Zechariah 12:10: they shall look upon him whom they have pierced; Psalm 22:16: They have pierced my hands and my feet.) Early cultic Christianity was precisely this, whether other Jews had anticipated them or not, the perception (impelled by various philosophical and salvific ideas in the air of the time) of the revelation in scripture of God’s Son and the redeeming sacrifice he had undergone. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has created an entire sacrifice in heaven solely out of scripture. It’s called innovation; the history of ideas is full of it.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter if Jews were not expecting a crucified Messiah. When a new idea arises, it’s automatically the case that no one had thought of or expected it before. That hardly prevents the new idea from occurring. Otherwise, we’d never come up with new ideas.

If one thinks one has perceived a new truth, especially through divine revelation, then *that* is what impels the creation of the perceived personality. In their minds it hasn’t been “fabricated,” it’s been revealed.

Earl Doherty

Diogenes the Cynic

Theoretically, yes you are correct that a particular individual could perceive some kind of radically new interpretation of a text (I would still call it eisegetic rather than exegetic, though), and we've even seen examples of it in recent history such as with Rapture theology (totally fabricated from the same sort of cut and paste/photoshop manipulations used to create so many of the Gospel narratives), but Ehrman argues strongly that a Jesus cult predates Paul (pointing out, for instance, that Paul claims to have persecuted Christians).

I would also argue personally that I would expect to see a purely mythical entity being historized into a physical one to show a chronologically "downward" evolution from divine and transcendent to material and human.

The Christology of Jesus evolves from human to more and more divine, though, as evidenced, for instance by the repeated pushing back of the moment he came into his identity.

He ascended to heaven, he will now return as the Messiah (artifactual speeches in Luke-Acts). No he became the Messiah when he was baptized (Mark), no it was when he was born (Luke), no he was always the logos (John). This evolves from the bottom up. The earlier Jesus is more human. The primitive sayings traditions reflected in Q and Thomas do not make any divine claims for Jesus (or even messianic claims).

Earl, do you view something akin to what is outlined by Tactitus (The Christian movement was started by a "Christ" was crucified by Pilate, and his followers continued a movement after his death) - something that spare, without any reference to the Gospels or even Paul, but just Tacitus -would you consider that to be out of the question as even a historical possibility, or do you simply regard such a hypothetical figure as insufficient to be called "Jesus?"

Diogenes the Cynic

By the way, Earl, to give you something on your own side of the debate, has it occurred to you that we can see, in popular culture, an example of a supposedly real (though as yet unseen) character being synthesized from passage cut from both the Old and New Testaments?

It's "Antichrist." This supposed, futuristic supervillain is not in the Bible, yet millions not only believe that this character is predicted in the Bible, but expend a lot of energy trying to identify living people as the Antichrist (a truly embarrassing number of Americans think that Barack Obama is the Antichrist, for instance).

Have you thought of pursuing example of the fabrication of a character from scripture (though the Antichrist is not quite at the "historicized" stage, one could easily see it happening)?

aa5874

Your assertion is erroneous and shows that you have no source to support you.

Please Identify a credible source that show Jesus was was KNOWN to be human, and was KNOWN to be a Sinner who could NOT be Savior of mankind and that people of Galilee knew Jesus was crucified because he was a Blasphemer and still told people he was the Creator of heaven and earth???

There is NO book in the Canon, none, that state Jesus was human with a human father.

If you want to claim Jesus was human with a human father you MUST supply your sources.

If I claimed Pontius Pilate was the Messiah then I would have to produce my sources to avoid being a Laughing stock.

If I claimed the angel Gabriel was the Governor of Judea then I must PRESENT MY SOURCES to avoid ridicule.

Please provide your sources that show your Jesus was a man.

I hope you don't use the same sources that claim Jesus walked on water and transfigured---those are Myth Fables.

Steven Carr

You've explained to me often enough what a Messiah was in enough detail that I now know that going to Heaven is not what makes you a Messiah.

I wonder why Christians explained that being raised to Heaven after he was crucified made Jesus the Son of God, when I am now informed that it made him the Messiah.

'Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead...'

Steven Carr

Ehrman achieves this feat by rewriting history.

He puts his invisible sources for the Gospels before Paul, and if something in Paul might predate Paul, and upset his story-line, he claims that it does not represent the views of the earliest Christians, even if it did predate Paul.

So having turned the time-line of the Biblical documents inside out, he then claims the direction is now the other way around from the direction Doherty argued for, as Doherty was working on the old-fashioned paradigm that Paul predates the Gospels.

aa5874

Again, Apologetic sources have stated that Paul was AWARE of gLuke. See Commentary on Matthew 1 and Church History 6.25.

We also see that the authors of the Short-ending and Long-Ending gMark and gMatthew are NOT aware of the Pauline Gospel of Universal Salvation by the Resurrection.

Mark 16.16Matthew 28:19 KJV Romans 10:9 KJV1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV The Pauline Gospel of Universal SALVATION through the Resurrection is AFTER the Gospel of Salvation by BAPTISM in gMark and gMatthew.

The Pauline writer made this EXTREMELY clear.

1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV The Pauline writer appears to be aware of the Gospel of Salvation by Baptism.

The story of Baptism by John for the Remission of Sins MUST predate the Pauline Gospel of Universal Salvation by the Resurrection.

After all the BAPTISM by John PRECEDES the Resurrection.

Now, here comes the fun part.

The Resurrection is a LIE [Embellishment]. ALL resurrections are LIES [Embellishments].

It is documented in Josephus that John the Baptist did Baptize but in a forgery it is claimed Jesus resurrected.

Salvation by the Resurrection is a VERY LATE LIE [Embellishment] by the Pauline writer.

The Pauline revealed Gospel of Universal Salvation through the Resurrection is AFTER the John the Baptist story of Baptism for salvation.

maryhelena

:thumbs:

I've never been able to understand why some mythicists are so hell-bent on turning the NT story upside down. The NT JC story is what it is. The JC story is followed by the Paul story. That is what the ahistoricists/mythicists should be dealing with - the story as it is given. Re-writing that story, turning it upside down, back to front, in order to suit some assumptions re early christian origins, is not going to advance the ahistoricists verse historicist debate over the gospel JC.

DCHindley

la,

Ehrman cites a "popular" explanantion for Cephas and Peter in Gal 2:

C2 In Gal 2:7-8, Paul is citing some kind of officially transcribed document of the Jerusalem conference mentioned in Gal 2:2. This assumes that a) The document used the name Peter, and that b) in Paul's "own language" and preference, he prefers to use the equivalent name Cephas.

Ehrman counters that:

E(C2)a the whole account (of Gal 2:2-10) is in the first person, without a hint that he is quoting an official document, and especially as it would have strengthened his case to have done so, and

E(C2)b he notes that the wording of 2:7-8 is characteristic of other writings in the Pauline corpus, inferring (without actually stating it) that this would not then represent the wording of a document he did not draft himself.

E(C2)c Any argument that the presence of the name "Peter" (in Gal 2:7-8) is itself proof enough that this passage likely reflects the wording of a Jerusalem agreement, is a case of circular reasoning.

Allison had countered this with the following argument:

A(E(C2)b)a The employment of characteristically Pauline language in a description of the contents of a hypothetical "pre-Pauline text" at Gal 2:7 was not a problem for H. D. Betz in his 1979 rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Betz's reasoning is that "rather than 'quoting' from the written protocol, Paul reminds the readers of the agreements by using the terms upon which the parties had agreed" (i.e., he paraphrased the terms of the agreement in his own language).

A(E(C2)b)b Allison suggests that the proposal that this verse (Gal 2:7) as an allusion to the material embedded in Matt 16:17-19 may "perhaps have something to be said" for it, and notes that Pseudo Clementine Homilies 17:19 combines clear allusions to Matt 16:18 and Gal 2:11 in a manner consistent with this proposal.

Perhaps why Ehrman calls the arguments about different names being used in the first two chapters of Galatians being "recent" is that the Byzantine/Received Text has "Peter" in several places where the Nestle/Aland text has chosen "Cephas." This calls into question whether the original text had a clear mixture of Peter & Cephas or simply Cephas. The Byzantine/TR may then reflect a change in this section of text under the influence of the John 1:42, the only place in the NT where Peter and Cephas are directly equated.

Verse		N/A GNT	TR
1 COR 1:12	KHFA		KHFA
1 COR 3:22	KHFAS		KHFAS
1 COR 9:5	KHFAS		KHFAS
1 COR 15:5	KHFA		KHFA
GAL 1:18	KHFAN		PETRON
GAL 2:7	PETROS	PETROS
GAL 2:8	PETRW		PETRW
GAL 2:9	KHFAS		KHFAS
GAL 2:11	KHFAS		PETROS
GAL 2:14	KHFA		PETRW

DCH

Diogenes the Cynic

You are misunderstanding what I said. They didn't think that going to Heaven made him the Messiah. They thought it meant he would RETURN as the Messiah. They didn't think he was the Messiah yet. Nobody is the Messiah until they fulfill the expectations. Messiahship is defined by accomplishment, not innate identity.

"Son of God" and "Messiah" are the same thing, by the way. "Son of God" is just another royal honorific, like "anointed."