bacht

There was also the Deuteronomistic reform movement of the 7th C bce. This could be the source of the messiah idea, with a mythologized David pre-figuring Josiah's ambitions for territorial expansion after the decline of Assyria.

The book of Kings presents the rise and fall of northern Israel and the survival of southern Judah, the "remnant" of Yahwism. The recurrent theme of the passed-over firstborn supports this perspective: rich and sophisticated Israel was destroyed while humble little brother Judah carried on.

ApostateAbe

We know for sure that the gospel of Matthew thought of Jesus as being of the line of David, the same as what Paul believed. Why? Well, because...

(Matthew 1:1) An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Yes, the genealogy goes to Joseph, not Mary, and Joseph would presumably be more like a step-father. Does it make sense? No. But, personally, I don't expect the early Christians to be always logically consistent. Do you?

We even find that same belief in Mark, even without the genealogy.

(Mark 10:47) When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’

Of course, yes, you have speculative alternative explanations for the seeming correspondence. But those are peculiar speculations, not evidence that demands an explanation. So, when you ask, "Why would anyone assume that the gospels and Paul are referring to the same person, based on this?" I answer: the largest religion in the world had no trouble establishing their canon based in part on that seeming correspondence, and none of the heretics, apostates or pagans throughout 2000 years ever disagreed until the mythicists of modernity, because the correspondence follows directly from the evidence.

Toto

No, I pointed out where there was no correspondence.

Christianity was not the largest religion in the world at the time this happened. It was a minor sect, and it was possible to get all of the leaders of the church in one room at one time.

What? The establishment of the canon took a lot of political debate and actual fighting. There was trouble enough.

Based more on political necessity and the need for a unified structure if the church was to survive (and later if the church was to meet the needs of the Roman Empire for a unifying ideology.)

Oh, but the heretics did disagree about a lot, even in what was preserved by the orthodox heresiologists.

No, because the orthodox church decided to create a canon, and forged or forced the evidence to conform to its theory. Your hero Bart Ehrman has written a book on Forgery, so you have to admit that it happened.

ApostateAbe

Toto, I notice that you skipped over the first two thirds of my post, where I talked specifically about the correspondence between Paul and the gospels concerning the Davidian lineage of Jesus. The evidence is very simply, directly, and conclusively in favor of one explanation and not the other. It really doesn't surprise me all that much that you skipped over it. It is normal behavior, after all, and you are no exception.

I would like to use this opportunity to point out why it isn't at all such a bad thing to admit wrong. You have attempted to sully my character on several occasions by saying that I have regularly backed away from an argument and admitted being wrong. That is true. I do that. When someone rhetorically backs me into a corner and I have nowhere to run, I surrender. I admit the mistake. I say I was wrong. I even change my mind. I could behave like most of everyone else--when they find out they are wrong, they stay silent. Such people would be superior, in my opinion, to almost all of the remaining people, who seemingly can't possibly even secretly believe that they were wrong and they continue to stand behind their claim.

Now, I want you to take a good look at what just happened, and ask yourself, "Which sort of behavior is preferable?"

Toto

I skipped over it because time is finite and it did not seem worth addressing. Yes, both Paul and the gospels claim that Jesus fulfilled this one criteria for the expected Messiah - but so what? How would this help you identify Jesus if you met him on the street? How does it tie Paul to the gospels? The probable link is that a later editor added both references to the gospels to further an anti-Marcionite agenda, of course, but I can't prove that. I can only point out that much of Israel at the time could claim to be of the lineage of David. That is not a unique identifier of the particular Jesus in question

And I guess in skipping over that I didn't notice that was your only point. So I might have misconstrued the rest. Sorry about that. But I think my points still hold and you are still completely in error on the idea that there is a clear connection between Paul's Jesus and the gospel Jesus.

This does not sully your character. I have accused you of shooting from the hip and going out on limb on questions that you did not know anything about, which forced you to back off and admit that you didn't know what you were talking about. It's not admitting error that is a problem, it's your acts of being overly confident in your initial assertions and posting invalid claims on this forum.

I replied to your blog post. I now see the source of some of your confusion.

ApostateAbe

You admitted wrong, met me at least half way, and you deserve recognition and appreciation for that. I know you don't have a high opinion of me, but I certainly have a high opinion of you, despite the various frustrations.

Kapyong

Gday,

WHO was the woman according to Paul?
Apparently Jerusalem Above, our MOTHER.
No Mary.

Gentiles can be "seed of Abraham" without it being literal.

So?
It's a religious title.
Is the person called "Ahiyah" a real brother of Yahveh?


Took place in a heaven.


They are spiritual powers above, not historical.


An interpolation.



So?
Osiris was buried.
Is he real too?


None of these alleged historical planks stand up to scrutiny at all.


Kapyong

Kapyong

Gday,

Thanks Vincent :-)

You can find my site here now :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~dal.sahota/qdj/FOC/

Table is here :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~dal.sah...FOC/Table.html

I think this chart makes it quite clear :
the knowledge OF the Gospels stories came FROM the Gospels - when the became known in mid 2nd century or so.


Kapyong

aa5874

Can some-one tell me the "STAR WITNESS" for HJ?

HJers are supposed to have a "STAR WITNESS" for HJ that can BLOW away MJ.

It's like we have A HIGH-POWERED team for HJ and NOTHING else.

Johnny Skeptic

IIUC, according to maryhelena, the star witness is Josephus.