Vorkosigan

Actually, there are many examples of it in Jewish literature of the Second Temple era. A whole theology of "Two Powers" in Heaven emerged, centered around such figures as Melchizeldek, Enoch, Moses, and others such as the Son of Man in Dan 7:13. Like Jesus, these figures ascended from earth and were promoted to heaven, where they received divine powers and were given god's name, in many cases. This idea is inherent in Psalm 110, which was a key text for nascent Christianity. Angels also underwent such treatment, and there is a whole cultural ideal of Divine Mediators common across the Near East that the Jews partook of. The idea you espouse here is an impoverished view of Judaism that has no place in serious discussion. This website has a bunch of articles by leading scholars on such figures. There is absolutely nothing in the Jesus story that contradicts what people in Judaism believed, including an atoning death (see Margaret Barker's work on that site).

Nowhere does Isaiah predict this.

Alas, no. Have you read a serious scholarly commentary on the OT?

Alas, no. See Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Another good view is Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament. In fact the text was routinely tampered with. The Gospel of John, for example, has been edited and redacted at least 3 times, with material inserted and deleted each time. Similarly Mark is missing an ending, and many parts of it, such as the Bethsaida section, stink of interpolation. Other parts seem to have been redacted, and we know from Matt and Luke, who used Mark, that the text they had is not the one we have, though naturally they are close.

Vorkosigan

DBT

Thats fair enough.
It's just that I was just hoping for a comment from one of the biblical scholars on whether or not the catholic claim of a continuous history, starting from the crucifiction of St Peter, was a valid arguement for the existence of a historical Jesus.

Killer Mike

I think the best way to approach this subject is the same way one would with any other subject, and that is to stay within the mainstream of religous scholarship. PBS recently held a four part four hour long series titled "From Jesus to Christ". Scholars from Harvard, Yale, Brown, and other top universities were interviewed. They all agree Jesus did exist, but like many historical figures in history, mythological themes were attached later. If you look at Mormonism, Joseph Smith existed, but according to Mormon Mythology, he found gold tablets with sacred writings on them. There were angels present, etc..

If the "Jesus Myth" folks could convince the mainstream that Jesus did not exist, then I would be more inclined to take their claims seriously.

Vorkosigan

If scholars had decent historical methodology, I would be inclined to take this comment seriously. But the reality is that the vast majority of "mainstream" scholars are Christians who swear an oath called the Nicene Creed on a periodic base, said oath committing them to their position that Jesus is not a myth. Offhand, I don't know of any other field of historical inquiry in which the members all take oaths to certain positions in it.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

But Joseph Smith wrote that about himself. That's what we call fabrication of fiction, like Mohammed and Gabriel etc... Application after the fact is a little different, which is what most scholars attribute to Jesus.

Mr. Aardvark

I am not sure I understand the nature of the question. Is it “Is there convincing evidence that someone dubbed ‘Jesus’ in the NT was the basis of the NT?�? If that is the question, then I wonder what the standard for “evidence�? should be for someone who was reputed to live approximately 2,000 years ago. Should it require the same degree of evidentiary support as would be required for some who allegedly lived, say, 200 years ago or 500 years in order to be convincing?

Is the question “Is it reasonable to assume that someone dubbed ‘Jesus’ in the NT served as the basis of the NT?�? If so then that question places us on different ground because it places the question of Jesus’ historicity on par w/ other alleged historical persons of antiquity around whom various mythical and fantastical claims gathered. The question then becomes one like “Is it reasonable to assume that someone dubbed ‘Homer’ served as the basis for the telling and eventual authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey?�?

On that basis I would argue the assumption is reasonable even if the evidence isn’t as convincing as, say, George Washington existed.

Jobar

I don't disagree. I said that the central sayings and parables could well have been the work of a small handful of speakers and/or writers. When one looks at, oh, the Sermon on the Mount for instance, there is a strong sense of unity about it, in style, content, and flow. I don't doubt that the Sermon was largely the product of one person. However, that person could have written it pseudopigraphically, to give his writing more force and broader circulation.

If one cares to look for them, many NT passages have the same sort of internal coherence; the thing is, many of those passages lack any stylistic resemblance to each other. If we assume (despite the known risks of doing that ) that each of those passages are indeed written by different individuals, which of them do we decide to call Jesus?

Chili

Exactly. The idea is to bring heaven down to earth so that earth may be raised into the likeness of heaven while still on earth.

It is God coming down to man so man can be God after the image in which he was created . . . is Lord God become fully God.

Chili

I understand but even if there was such a thing I would see it as fiction because Peter himself was the personification of the 'keen insight' of Jewish faith = Peter the Rock. Peter was needed for the transition from Judaism to Catholicism to make the Church inspired and Paul was the first manifestation of this faith in action.

But that is just how I see it.

Vivisector

I have to wonder aloud - what would the polling results have been if we were voting on the historicity of John the Baptist instead of Jesus? Or Theudas, Judas, the Egyptian, or any of the "bit players" of the milieu? Would any of these individuals have survived inquiries along the lines of Doherty, Wells et al.? Have their respective historical existences been subjected to similar scrutiny? And if not, why not?