Horatio Parker

The OP:

I think we've established one way the resurrection could've "started".

As for persistence, I would credit the egalitarianism of the new religion. The Cynic-style rejection of the material and elevation of the inner self plus the un-Academy like emphasis on triumph over suffering appealed to the masses.

Toto

"treif" is not a typo. It means "not Kosher."

Toto

Not everyone.

Early Christian Writings

The existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been challenged. The assumption of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been undermined by studies that aim to show that the final three chapters of Mark contain themes developed throughout the Gospel. In The Passion in Mark, Donahue, Robbins, Kelber, Perrin, Dewey, Weeden, and Crossan interpret the passion narrative with the use of "hermeneutical clues" provided in the first thirteen chapters. (p. 153) Kelber states the conclusion to be drawn: "The understanding of Mk 14-16 as a theologically integral part of the Mkan Gospel calls into question the classic form critical thesis concerning an independent and coherent Passion Narrative prior to Mk. Thematically, it is difficult to identify a major non-Mkan thrust or theme in Mk 14-16, let alone extrapolate a coherent pre-Mkan source."

The claim that some identifiable part of Mark is earlier seems. like a typical apologetic ploy to find some possibility of a historical core in Mark

The DSS have no mention of gThomas or Mark :huh: What is this about?

No. There is still no reason to accept the non-supernatural elements of a fairy tale.

aa5874

No, No, No!!!! I am NOT really interested in Scholarly support. I am Directly interested in CREDIBLE sources of antiquity.

Credible Sources, Credible Data is IMPERATIVE at any level in the reconstruction of the past whether from a minute to million years ago.

Now, I see your problem. You have NO understanding of the term "historical Jesus".

Do you NOT even realize that HJers are ON A QUEST for an "historical Jesus"??

There is a WORLDWIDE HUNT by HJers for evidence of an historical Jesus for Hundreds of years.

The Jesus in gLuke and Acts is the Jesus of FAITH--Myth Jesus.

The author of gLuke is NOT interested in a human Jesus.

The author of gLuke claimed he did some kind of investigation and used eyewitnesses and PUBLISHED his findings.

The author of gLuke Presented Details of how Jesus was born of a GHOST.

The GHOST "overshadowed" Mary
and she produced a Ghost BABY. See Luke 1.26-35

gLuke Jesus was born of a Ghost, transfigured, resurrected, Ate Fish after the resurrection when he commissioned the disciples and Ascended.

gLuke's Jesus is NOT an historical Jesus.

gLuke's Jesus is the product of a Documented MYTH FABLE.

You do not understand what an "historical Jesus" means. The Angel Gabriel was in the City of Nazareth and Conversed with Mary that does NOT mean the Angel Gabriel was a figure of history.

The Devil was with Jesus on the Pinnacle of the Temple that does NOT mean the Devil was a figure of history.

In the Canonised Gospels Jesus WALKED on the sea, transfigured, was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, and was God the Creator that resurrected, ate fish after the resurrection and ascended.

The Jesus of the Gospels is a product of Mythology.

The Pauline writer had NO interest in a human Jesus. The Pauline Jesus MUST be a product of Mythology. The Pauline Jesus MUST Resurrect for Remission of Sins.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

TedM

aa, Gluke describes Jesus as a person would describe both a man and a divine being. If he knew Paul that would hurt the claim that in Paul's mind Jesus was a purely divine being (ie no man) . That's pretty much all I'm trying to say.

I know you reject the idea of a man who is also divine, and that's ok. I pretty much feel the same way. If a 'divine-man' is impossible that still doesn't mean that the gospel writers and earliest Christians didn't believe in the impossible, right? If Jesus was just a man, then part of what they wrote may have been true history and the supernatural parts would not have been accurate (though the writers may have thought they were). That's what I mean by saying GLuke was writing about a historical Jesus--I mean the parts that MAY have been true history.

In Paul's mind(what I refer to as "Paul's Jesus") Jesus was never purely divine. He clearly calls him a man too. What's missing are the details, which is what helps provide support to Earl D's theory that Paul's Jesus--the Jesus in Paul's mind that he wrote about-- lived and died in the sky and not on earth. If the person that wrote Gluke knew Paul, and supported his theology, I'm saying that is strong evidence that in Paul's mind Jesus wasn't crucified in the sky but lived and was crucified on earth by Pilate==the gospel Jesus, for the most part. I'm NOT saying that's evidence for the divine parts. I'm only referring to the so-called 'historical Jesus'.

In a nutshell, if the writer of Luke-Acts knew Paul well (and Paul was who the letters say he was), then that pretty much shoots down the purely Mythical Jesus theory better perhaps than any other anti-MJ/proHJ argument I can think of. It's almost as good--not quite of course--as saying that Paul himself wrote GLuke-Acts! Do you see how that would hurt the MJ case?

I can only hope you have no problem with this post. It's probably the best I can do to define what I mean when I talk about the HJ and what I was saying about Luke-Acts.

aa5874

Your claim is blatantly erroneous. You very well know that gLuke Jesus was born of a Ghost and that he had NO human father.

You very well know that the author of gLuke even provided the details of EXACTLY how his Jesus was Conceived.

The Ghost "Overshadowed" Mary
And she produced a Ghost Baby See Luke 1.26-35

Again, it is IMPERATIVE that you understand the term "historical Jesus". Jesus of the NT is NOT an historical Jesus that is precisely why HJERS have been on a MANHUNT for hundreds of years LOOKING for evidence for an Historical Jesus.

You must show that you can reason.

Would HJers go on a MANHUNT for an Historical Jesus if he was already found in the Bible???

The Historical Jesus remains LOST for at least 1800 years. He will NOT be found today.

iF YOU ARE WRONG then what??? The HJ argument is flawed--they discredit their sources and then speculate their own history.

The very Church used the Pauline writings to argue that Jesus was GOD Incarnate but HJers DISCREDIT the Pauline writer and claim his Jesus was a mere man.

Now, if the Pauline Jesus was a mere man then logically the Pauline writings are a Pack of lies--Jesus did NOT RESURRECT on the Third day.

TedM

I did the best I could but you still cannot understand what I'm saying. You have a way of looking at it that is so fixed and literal that you are unable to comprehend nuance. This is why you argue with almost everyone on this forum about almost everything they say.

A divine man is something you can't fathom so you are mentally unable to comprehend that those who write about one could have been mythologizing an actual human being. It simple doesn't compute for you.

You have concluded that there is no such thing as a HJ so any reference to a HJ in the context of canonical writings is something you are unable to understand even. It's a brain malfunction aa. Sorry to say. I give up with trying to help you understand nuance. It must not be in your genes.

Samadhi

Christianity has always been an evangelical religion. As it spread deeper into the Roman sphere, it actually had to compete with other religion in gain adherents. The two major religions in the Roman world at that time were the cults of Mithras amd Isis. Both had resurrection as a component of the belief system. If Christians didn't have a resurrection myth in the beginning they probably had to adopt one quickly in order to survive in the spiritual marketplace.

When going up against Isis or Mithras, what good is your god if he cannot rise from the dead or cause others to do so?

EarlDoherty

Why adopt a premiss that is not proven or demonstrated? It's a pointless exercise. And why get pissed at people for not taking part in your pointless exercise?

In 1 Cor. 15:4, Paul tells us that Jesus was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. The latter phrase, if we take into account Gal. 1:11-12, must mean (not literally, but just as we use "according to" in the same way) "as we learn from the scriptures".

In 1 Cor. 15:16-20, Paul tells us that we know about Jesus' resurrection from God, which means through revelation (he says, if Jesus was not raised, then we, the apostles preaching his resurrection, are "in contradiction with God").

In 1 Thess. 4:14, Paul tells us that "we believe that Jesus died and rose again." If the resurrection were physically, historically known, let alone that many people saw Jesus in the flesh, why is it a case of "belief/faith" that Jesus rose. Why, indeed, is it a case of faith that Jesus DIED?

1 Peter 3:18 says that Jesus died "in flesh" (doesn't say what sort of flesh or where) and rose "in spirit". The latter hardly refers to witnessed, physical resurrection. So it's a matter of faith here, too.

None of the other christological hymns, or indeed anywhere in the epistles whatsoever, do writers say that Jesus rose in flesh, or was seen in physical form by anyone. Reading that into 1 Cor. 15:5-7 is begging the question, and contradicts Paul as including his own 'vision' of Christ in the same category as the others, as he also does in 9:1 claiming that his "seeing the Lord" is equal to the others' and gives him equal legitimacy.

I could go on. But more does one need? The epistles do not give us any form of earthly, physical resurrection. So what's the point of this exercise? We all know what you're trying to do. But you might as well have a prosecuting attorney arguing at the beginning of the trial: "IF the defendant is guilty, your honor, shouldn't we give him the death penalty?"

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

Did they copy Christianity?