GakuseiDon

I'd recommend reading through these threads, where Doherty, me and others thrash out the issues. I'm happy to go over points raised, though probably better to do so in a fresh thread.
Plutarch, Doherty, Carrier and the world of myth
Reply to 3 of Carrier's claims against Muller regarding Doherty's thesis

IMO we may never know.

True. But I don't think it is possible to reconcile those statements with a "non-earthly" Jesus. That doesn't make him historical, but it does knock out some versions of mythicism, including Doherty's.

aa5874

Why do you ignore the other descriptions of Jesus by the writer called Paul if you want to know how Jesus would have looked ?

Never forget that the writer wrote that he, Jesus, rose on the third day. The resurrection is the most important and critical factor of the description of Jesus if you really want to know what Jesus was like.

To understand the Jesus of the writer called Paul, everything that was said about the character must be taken into account.

ph2ter

But, the evidence from the Didache is in favor of 1/ to be true and 2/ to be false. The version in the Didache is certainly more primitive than the accounts from Luke and Paul.
The Didache characterizes the prayers over the eucharistic elements as part of the ritual of thanksgiving and to the original Jewish prayer introduces Jesus as servant of Father. The Didache is not unique in that innovation, because similar connection with the Jewish Messiah exists also in the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumrân. In The Messianic Rule exists the following text :
"And when they shall gather for the common table, to eat and to drink new wine, when the common table shall be set for eating and new wine poured for drinking, let no man extend his hand over the first-fruits of bread and wine before the Priest ; for it is he who shall bless the first-fruits of bread and wine, and shall be the first to extend his hand over the bread. Thereafter, the Messiah of Israel shall extend his hand over the bread, and all the congregation of the Community shall utter a blessing, each man in the order of his dignity."
So, if that connection existed long before supposed birth of Jesus, then it is a strong indication of fabrication.

Jayrok

Thanks, I'll read through them.


What a find it would be if someone were to discover manuscripts from the second century that mention Paul and others who purposely altered his texts for theological reasons. Some suspect Marcione may have altered Paul but if there was proof it would be remarkable.

As a side note, incidentally, this is one of the reasons I don't believe Satan or the devil exists. Surely he would be smart enough to plant such evidence that would lead to more controversy. I often thought, if he existed and was as cunning as portrayed, he would plant original manuscripts of Josephus that do not mention the TF at all. And other some such bits of evidence throughout the centuries.

I don't know. I haven't really looked at them long enough to try and come up with a reconciliation. Keep in mind, though, how easy it is for apologists to reconcile the gospels (in their minds). Anything is possible.

I'm not sure if it completely knocks out Doherty's hypothesis. He makes a compelling argument, IMO.