dog-on

Don't know why they would do that, unless they want to dump YHWH, I suppose.

No Robots

Not at all. It just means recognizing Christ as the great proponent of pure yahwism.

dog-on

Or great replacer(sp?) if (original) Paul was correct... :devil1:

Face it. The gospels spin a real good yarn regarding the reason that the poor Jews are no longer the chosen ones.

Had their ultimate chance and blew it, epically...

No Robots

Paul in his proselytizing to non-Jews perhaps got a little too close their way of thinking, but that is nothing that I little purified Yahwism can't overcome.

That's what some think of gospels. Others see them as a testament to the enduring genius of Judaism, embodied magnificently in Christ.

Many cultures have derided, ignored and destroyed their geniuses; and later repented. Do the Athenians still want Socrates dead?

dog-on

Ah, they were just happy he drank the kool-aid... :Cheeky:

dog-on

So, unless I missed something, as of now, there is no real argument against a Roman origin for Christianity.

Interesting.

No Robots

What you are missing is the fact that some Jews are engaged in reappropriating Christ as one of their most important cultural figures:

Jesus is the most famous Jew of all time, but is ironically remembered today as a Christian. Surprisingly, the Jewish community has accepted this act of forced conversion, and have abandoned Jesus as an apostate who was a traitor to his people. How odd that the Jews would accept a Christian version of one of their brethren rather than seeking to discover the man entombed beneath the myth.--"Reclaiming Jesus" / Shmuley Boteach

Mythicism is the last gasp of non-Jewish appropriation of Christ. Having failed to convince the world that Christ is a non-Jewish god, non-Jews are now trying to convince the world that Christ is a non-Jewish myth.

dog-on

That was actually pretty funny. Thanks.

rlogan

Yes, disengenuous.

Because it is the pretense that there are contemporary Jewish responses to Jesus.

Our discussant isn't much on citing things. But let's see what the earliest Jewish tract is referencing the alleged Jesus.

Bring it on.

rlogan

You have Marcionite circles coming out with the first published credentialing of a Christian strain - and it is interesting because you only have Paul's vision. Mythical, spiritual - God is all around us in those days so it is not meant in the sense of the Easter Bunny.

The response to that in a game theoretic approach is for the competition to create a stronger credentialing. The strongest of all is of course a real Jesus and a linear claim to the faith directly from him.

I know you are relentless about Constantine. But I accept the Pliny-Trajan exchange as genuine, and an accurate description of Christians in 112 CE or so. At that time there was Christ without a Jesus.

But in the 2nd century there are gospels. I think spin gave a legitimate proto-gospel reference in the 130's or so. Don't remember the exact date, but it seems there is some early 2nd century development before the first edition of Mark.