Amaleq13

I believe he was responding to your attempt to us a reference in Romans in which Jesus is referred to as "son of God" as though it meant Jesus was a God.

Again, this describes your posts better than anyone else's in this discussion.

It appears that you are trying to apply John's use of "son of God" to Paul's earlier use of "son of God" to establish that Jesus was called god prior to John.

It should be obvious that this is flawed reasoning.

robto

(emphasis added)

I'm not so sure about "undeniable" (John also calls Jesus "master" - does that mean that "master" implies deity?), but suppose you're right. Does it then follow that "Son of God" implies deity for Paul? No.

Context is everything here. For Paul, the relevant context is Judaism. There is little or no evidence in pre-Christian Judaism that "son of God" implied deity. For Paul, we have the additional evidence that, in the generally accepted "genuine" letters, he never explicitly calls Jesus "God" or "a god". That seems an airtight case that Paul didn't think of Jesus as a god.

Bboyneko

I don't get what Michael Jackson has to do with this

Brother Daniel

(I’m jumping around a bit, changing the order of quotations for convenience.)Well, of course Paul knew that the Christians revered some entity they called “Jesus”. I didn’t intend to imply otherwise.

Anyway, I think I now see what you’re saying here. The independence from tradition that Paul claims for his gospel is rendered highly suspect by the compatibility of that message with prior Christianity.

It now seems to me (much to my surprise!) that my reading of Galatians supports your position just as well as your reading does. You’ve persuaded me that the problem of Paul’s sources doesn’t really work as negative evidence (contra-HJ). Well done. So although I still disagree with your exegesis of Galatians, I won’t bother to follow up that part of the discussion, since it doesn’t seem to matter now.

But we appear to have a more serious ongoing disagreement, about the principle behind using negative evidence. So for convenience, I’ll pick it up here:
Rather fuzzy line between them, don’t you think? Nicknames are appellations, though appellations are not always nicknames.
*sigh*. No, but since you’re missing the point, let me try to spell this out for you. The fact that James is called “Brother of the Lord” is brought up (correctly) as a point against the MJ. The degree of damage done to an MJ theory by this observation is reduced, insofar as one can argue that this appellation could have been a nickname. To show positive evidence that it was a nickname would bring this damage down to zero or near-zero, but an MJ advocate does not need to do so IF the cumulative damage done to the HJ, from other lines of argument, can rival or outweigh the cumulative damage done to the MJ (both from the “Brother of the Lord” observation and from other valid objections – such as the mere fact that GMark was written at all!).

Granted, that’s a big “if”. I’m not arguing here that one can damage the HJ to the extent required to establish the MJ, or even to the extent required to take the MJ seriously. (That would belong in a different thread. And I don’t for a moment imagine that I have even 1% of the historical knowledge needed to do it.) Rather, I’m arguing for the principle behind that way of arguing for the MJ.
And do those books conclude, based on observations of other (similar) cases, that this elevation should not be surprising? If so, I’d like to know more about those other cases. But if not, then these books, however interesting they may be for the purpose for which they were written, probably make little or no impact on our present discussion.
Yes, these observations (and speculations) are all perfectly appropriate ways to mitigate the damage done to the HJ by the unlikelihood of Jesus’s elevation to Godhood. But they don’t bring the damage to zero.

For example, I was under the impression that this “messianic hope” was generally oriented toward a leader who would shake off those awful Romans. So do you have evidence (outside of Christianity itself, since we want to avoid circular arguments) that this “messianic hope” was ever expressed in such a way that the messianic label would naturally stick to a preacher who differed from the usual template of a hoped-for messiah as drastically as Mark’s Jesus (for example) apparently did?

Now from the other post:
Equivocation? Not at all. I made it clear which sense of “unlikely” I was using, and I stuck with it. But I could have made a similar point by substituting the more technical sense of “unlikely” (i.e. the harmony with the evidence specific to the case) throughout. Indeed, I ought to have referred to the product of the two “unlikelihoods”, since there is perfect symmetry between the two of them in terms of how they impact the final probability.

As for the MJ theories being improbable: That judgment requires (in principle) a comparison of its likelihood (actually, the product of its likelihood (in the technical sense) and the prior probability) to the corresponding quantity for other theories. And that is why an honest assessment of the degree of difficulty faced by the HJ is (in principle) an essential part of the evaluation of an MJ case.
I was illustrating a principle. Notice that if there were a thousand white stones instead of just one, but my example were otherwise unmodified, then the argument in the final (hypothetical) conclusion would still be invalid. We’d be getting the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. The correct reasoning would involve a comparison of the red to the white, not a comparison of the red to the total (including black).

Here’s where the HJ comes in. I have yet to see any acknowledgement from the HJ side (based on my on-and-off lurking in this forum) that an assessment of the cumulative difficulties faced by the HJ is even relevant (in principle)! Until the relevance of such an assessment is acknowledged, the alternatives (read: MJ) cannot logically be dismissed. Of course, it may turn out that the HJ is still far more probable than the MJ (e.g., a thousand white stones instead of one), but that’s a separate question.
I readily admit, without reservation, that I have a great deal of reading to do.

(BTW: Thanks for the Ehrman recommendation.)
They have no traction in academia: That’s the basic observation. They have no substance: That’s your explanation (whether right or wrong) for why they have no traction.

And if (by “no substance”) you’re referring to such things as the lack of positive evidence that “Brother of the Lord” was indeed a nickname (for example), then that lack of “substance” is not a sufficient reason to dismiss the MJ, as I’ve already argued.
All of which are true – unless you can argue that some of them have a probability of zero (or ought in principle to be treated as having a probability of zero*). Suppress one probability, and all the other probabilities increase, in equal proportion. That’s how probability works. It’s related to the constraint of adding up to 1, you see.

(* The Divine Jesus theory has the problem of going outside of the naturalistic framework within which the study of history can possibly make sense. Ditto Last Tuesdayism. The MJ theory does not: At the core, it posits a misunderstanding of an unusual philosophy, leading its main (symbolic or allegedly supernatural) character to be historicized - just as the HJ theory posits a misunderstanding of an unusual man, leading him to be deified. Human misunderstandings are commonplace. There’s nothing weird or fantastical, in general, about them.)

The hard part is judging how much damage the HJ can take before you start having to take some of the alternatives seriously. If you are saying that the HJ doesn’t have anywhere near enough problems to start taking the MJ seriously (any MJ, not just a specific one like Doherty's), then I’m not arguing with you. (I'm just expressing some doubt about whether the Jesus historians in general have even bothered to assess that question -- and freely acknowledging that I don't have a right to expect anyone to give a hoot about that doubt of mine.)

But if you are saying (as you appear to be) that looking at the problems of the HJ is not even relevant in principle, then you exemplify my speculations regarding how the HJ/MJ debate dynamic works; and if you’re typical (which is doubtful), then my point is proved.
I have no idea what fit of madness led you to imagine some mathematical deficiency on my part. Perhaps you are just being rude for rudeness’ sake. You don’t need to do that. I’m not your enemy.

I freely (and frequently) acknowledge my ignorance of history, and of many other things. But mathematics is not one of them.

Not that it matters, but I have a PhD in particle theory.

aa5874

I have already made reference to Romans 1.3-5, where the author calls Jesus the son of God. There are other passages in the Epistles where Jesus is referred to as the son of God.

2 Corinthians 1.19, "For the son of God, Jesus Christ, was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus......"

1 Corinthians 15.47, "The first man is of the earth, the second man is the Lord from heaven,"

The term 'son of God' is used in gJohn to mean 'a god', it is used in the same context in the Epistles, which are said to have been written before gJohn.

Your assertion that no early writers called Jesus a god until John appears to be erroneous.

robto

You seem to keep missing the point. I never denied that Paul calls Jesus "son of God". The question is, what does he mean by that phrase?

I already said I was willing to stipulate that "son of God" = "god" for John. It does not follow that the same equation is true for Paul.

In the verses you cite, you emphasize "was preached" .... Do you think that if the Son "was preached", he must have been a deity? If so, why do you think so?

In 1 Cor, do you think that "from heaven" implies a deity? If so, why do you think so? Do you realize that in the OT there are verses that refer to a prophet being "sent" from God? In the Jewish context, then, being "from God" or "from heaven" doesn't necessarily imply deity.

Do you think "Lord" implies a deity? You're on even shakier ground there: the same Greek word is used for humans other than Jesus in the NT. It doesn't imply deity any more than our English word (landlord, e.g.)

If you want to make a case for Paul thinking of Jesus as a god, you'll have to do better than that.

Amaleq13

This is simply and obviously false. The context in John that allows one to interpret "son of God" as a title indicating at least equality with God in some sense are passages which more explicitly state that belief. This is precisely what you do not have with regard to Paul's letters.

IOW, you do not have the same context and your attempt to generalize the context provided by John backwards in time is simply flawed reasoning.

squiz

Do mythical Jesus theories really have "no traction in Academia"? Can someone back this up with some quotes?

Robert Price for one, expressed agnosticism on this issue. Maybe there are other academics who refrain from "coming out of the closet" but are also sympathetic.

I would be interested in seeing some quotations from modern Academics explicitely condemning such ideas.

aa5874

If you accept that Jesus, the son of God=god for John, and the authors of the Epistles called this very same Jesus Christ, son of God, then it is most obvious that son of God= god in the Epistles. This is so basic. The Epistles refer to the same figure ,Jesus Christ, as resurrected and ascended.

These are the words of Jesus, the son of God, after his resurrection, according to the author of John 20.17, "Jesus said unto her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God."

And these are the words of the authors of the Epistles in Romans 1.4, "And declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead."

Ephesians 4.10, "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.

It is evident that the son of God, Jesus Christ, in gJohn is the same son of God, Jesus Christ, in the Epistles. And since the authors of the Epistles are regarded as pre-dating gJohn, then your assertion appears to be erroneous, there were in fact writers before gJohn that called Jesus son of God, resurrected and ascended.

Amaleq13

The only thing that is obvious is your consistent, stubborn refusal to accept that your thinking is (again) fatally flawed.

Do you understand you are talking about individuals separated by several decades and unknown distances?

Do you understand that people separated by several decades and unknown distances can use the same phrase yet mean entirely different things by it?

Do you understand this is true even if those people consider themselves part of the same religion?

The word for your argument is simplistic. What is "basic" is the understanding needed to recognize that your argument is flawed.

That wasn't the assertion and you know it. You are the only one who thinks it makes sense to assume that every Christian thought of Jesus the same way John did simply because they used the phrase "son of God" in reference to him.