Steven Carr

I just presented it.

There is no convincing evidence for Jesus of the Gospels.

GakuseiDon

I agree. No convincing evidence for miracles, resurrection, etc. But what is the evidence for no historical Jesus?

Steven Carr

By deliberately and carefully qualifying the descent as only having come from them 'according to the flesh'.

GakuseiDon

What does that mean, exactly? It is meaningless as it stands.

Toto

Wrong

So, after complaining about being maligned as a Christian apologist, you align yourself with a Christian apologist?

You seem to have a vague idea of what Creationism is, and your comparison to mythicism misses the mark. Creationism is not just a fringe theory. In fact, it doesn't rise to the level of a theory. The essense of Creationism is Biblical literalism.

As for "the focus of possibility rather than probability, the wishful thinking, the contempt for intellectual authorities, the complexity of the subject, the ad hoc explanations posing as solutions" - all except possibly contempt for intellectual authority are characteristic of most of the Historical Jesus theories as much as mythicism, if not moreso.

In this forum, comparisons of mythicists to creationists are subject to edit as insults.

GakuseiDon

Toto, I don't believe that Jesus had any God DNA, and the Bible is a book just like any other book. In what way am I a "Christian apologist"?

Steven Carr

You would have to ask Paul what 'kata sarka' means. It is meaningless as it stands.

GakuseiDon

It means "according to the flesh". Here is a list of its usage on Ben C Smith's Text Excavation site:
http://www.textexcavation.com/accordingtotheflesh.html

Its usage when used non-allegorically is pretty clear. The only question is whether it is being used allegorically or not. I would say no, in the passages I presented before:

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came (Romans 9:3-5)

[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)

Looking at the "kata sarka" passages listed on the Text Excavation site supports the idea that Paul regarded Jesus as being historical, in the sense of Jesus being a descendent of the Israelites generally and of David in particular. Is there support for "kata sarka" being used in some other way?

Steven Carr

JAMES MCGRATH

Non-existent individuals do not say things or do things.

CARR
Indeed, Paul leaves out references to Jews having heard the words of Jesus or of Jesus having testified to things.

Romans 3
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Romans 3
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Nor does Paul have a Jesus who preached about himself.

Romans 10
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"



But if you want a non-existent person who says and does things :-

'Between 1977 and 1982, Maitreya telepathically communicated fragments of his teachings to Benjamin Creme at Creme's regular public meetings in London.'

http://www.share-international.org/m..._teachings.htm

Creationists cannot produce an example of creation, but it goes without saying that mythicists can point even now to mythical people who say and do things.

It is NORMAL for a religion whose earliest writings speak of revelations to have a mythical person giving those revelations.

What is the difference between the Maitreya's telepathic communications and revelations from the Lord telling his cult how to obtain access to his body in a ritual meal?

But historicists can read about the founder of a cult telling his cult how to obtain access to his body in a ritual meal and not even stop and ask themselves WTF?

Steven Carr

I say it is. You say it isn't.

'Apostolic Constitutions 8.35.1:

Καγω, Ιακωβος, αδελφος μεν κατα σαρκα του Χριστου, δουλος δε ως θεου μονογενους υιου, επισκοπος δε υπ αυτου του Χριστου και των αποστολων Ιεροσολυμων χειροτονηθεις, ταδε φημι.

And I, James, brother of Christ according to the flesh,'

How surprising (not) that it is a forgery where James claims to be the brother of Christ....

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.13:

On which account the Milesian Apollo, being asked whether he was God or man, replied in this manner: He was a mortal according to the flesh, wise in miraculous works; but, being arrested by an armed force by command of the Chaldean judges [θνητος εην κατα σαρκα, σοφος τερατωδεσιν εργοις, αλλ υπο Χαλδαιοισι δικασπολιαισιν αλωκως], with nails and the cross he endured a bitter end.

Who would make up a story about a crucified god?