darstec

I see you point. After all why would someone name a character in their fiction John Doe, as was the name Joshua used in the gospel fables?

andrewcriddle

One problem with the idea that Romans 1:3-4 is secondary is that its theology seems more primitive.

Romans 1:3-4 could be read in an adoptionist way unlike the passage in Ignatius.

It is IMO unlikely that the development was in that direction and more likely that Ignatius is rewriting Paul so as to be more safely and securely orthodox.

Andrew Criddle

darstec

But we have a lot of modern day evidence of taking complex theology and simplifying it.

However, your point is valid.

Doug Shaver

I fail to see why that is a problem of any kind. If it never really happened the way Luke says it did, then there were no real witnesses to what he said happened.

I see no reason to think Paul himself told any lies about his conversion. All he says is that he was converted. He gives no specifics at all. He says nothing about when, where, or how it happened.

Obviously not, but it is quite ordinary for someone write about a fictional event and say that it was witnessed by multitudes of people.

If Jesus was historic, we have no real information about him, since even if he was real, the gospels cannot be trusted in anything they say about him. Therefore, there is nothing dishonest or fraudulent of which we can reasonably accuse him, because we have no good evidence with which to support any such accusation.

Suit yourself.

Doug Shaver

Could I trouble you to clarify that? You seem to be saying that he could have been born believing in the Christ. Surely you didn't mean that.

dog-on

Is there any evidence in the first century or prior of any belief systems that could have centered on a "Christ" figure, just not the Jewish one?

jjramsey

Not necessarily. If Jesus staged miracles, then yes, he would be a fraud. However, if the miracles were legends from his followers, then it would hardly follow that Jesus himself was a fraud. One plausible scenario is that Jesus "healed" people by way of the placebo effect, and that for the most part, his followers remembered the hits and forgot the misses (with Mark 6:1-6 being an exception to this). These "miracles" spawned the rumors that led to the stories that we see in the NT.

dog-on

Miraculous healings were actually a pretty common belief at that time. I believe even Josephus attests to this belief.

Alf

"christ" is a greek term and just means "annointed one" and was used to imply reverence towards people or deities - real or fictional. As such just about anyone at that time could be referring to his favorite deity or a person whom he considered annointed to be "christ".

So yeah, there were lots of people worshipping "christ" even around 100 BC, long before Jesus was allegedly born.

Alf

Alf

Should also add that superstition was running rampant among the uneducated those days. There were healers and miracle workers just about around every corner. Even the gospels do not dispute that there were other miracle workers, they just claim those others were fake and tricksters while Jesus did them for real for no other reason than that that is what they believe.

So, a person rumored to work miracles in those days was no big deal.

Alf