robto

Sorry to have let the thread drop - I've been busy.

I just want to thank aa for making my point for me. Here I find no answer to the points I made, no new evidence presented... this is a statement of faith, not a rational argument.

I reiterate: in the earliest writings about Jesus, there are none that call him a god. It is not until John and later writers that Jesus is called god. If aa or anyone else has evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

robto

Another creationist tactic: claim "There's lots of scientific evidence for a young earth", then, when asked to provide it, fall silent.

I'm just sayin'...

Chris Weimer

Hardly. Look at afdave and his long debates - he didn't just "fall silent" - he distorted the evidence and twisted it to fit his preconceived theories.

Just saying...

aa5874

If the Pauline epistles are regarded as the some of the earliest writings, then Romans 1.3-5 refers to Jesus as the son of a God.

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead."

Brother Daniel

I’m not going to defend aa in general, since I certainly don’t agree with everything he says. But I don’t think you’re being entirely fair here.

He’s offering you a different perspective. The entity that you or I, or most people in this forum, would call a “Historical Jesus” (HJ) is very different from the traditional (Christian) Jesus (let’s call him “TJ”). The MJ/HJ difference is very minor compared to either the MJ/TJ or HJ/TJ difference. And the TJ, by its very nature, is arguably more like the god-man of a typical MJ theory than like the Jewish rabble-rouser (or whatever) of a typical HJ theory. (That’s what aa is getting at.) As for the documentary evidence: The earliest writer (Paul) speaks of the TJ, or at least of a proto-TJ that is quite compatible with the TJ. (Which is not surprising. After all, traditional Christians have made heavy use of Paul for a long time.)

You spoke of the HJ as being “generally accepted”. But there isn’t just one HJ theory. There are many. No one of them is “generally accepted”. What is “generally accepted” is a tacit agreement to pretend that we’re all talking about the same thing when we say “Jesus”.

Those who imagine that the HJ/MJ divide is simply about whether “Jesus existed” or “Jesus did not exist”, as if such a mysterious, shadowy figure can even be defined precisely, have missed the point.
Much of the evidence that one might be tempted to present here would be along the lines of, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.” And Paul’s Jesus often looks like a god and quacks (so to speak) like a god. As a place to start, look at Colossians 1:16, where Jesus is said to have created everything, or Philippians 2:6, where Jesus is said to have started out “in the form of God”.
Ah. But you haven’t asked for MJ evidence in general (and if you had, that would belong in a different thread). You asked for a very specific kind of evidence in a very specific place – much like a creationist who asks why he hasn’t seen a specific fossil (say, of the most recent common ancestor for humans and chimps) in a specific plot of land. (Just sayin’.)

Let’s think about which theories fit best with the evidence we do have. It’s too easy to get all hung up on “absence of evidence” without thinking adequately about what kind of evidence ought to exist (under the assumptions of whichever theory you’re criticizing). For example, people often attack the MJ based on the lack of evidence of clashes between early historicist-Christians and early non-historicist-Christians – as if the MJ theories imply that such clashes ought to have happened. (They don’t, in general. See my post #77.)

It seems to me that you are holding the MJ up to a far higher standard than you are using for the HJ. Under those conditions, of course the MJ is doomed.

- - - -

Paul makes a lot of assertions about Jesus. I assume he was serious. (He certainly wanted his readers to take him seriously, and that’s just as good for the present point.) So my question is: According to Paul, how did he come to know all those things (about Jesus) that he asserts?

Where does Paul show any sign of any of the kinds of knowledge-pathways that are appropriate when talking about a real, historical person? As far as I know, he doesn’t, at all.

(What do I mean by “knowledge-pathways”? When a writer claims to know something about a historical person, I would normally expect the writer either (a) to be that person, (b) to be personally acquainted with that person, (c) to be linked to that person by a (preferably identified) chain of acquaintance, or (d) to be relying on the work of earlier historians or journalists (preferably identified). Or (e): expand the list with a suggestion of your own, for how (real) people can come to know about other (real) people.)

This presents a challenge to the HJ. Is it enough, by itself, to make anyone take the MJ idea seriously? Of course not. My point is simply that this challenge is on the same level as the kinds of challenges that HJ-ers throw at the MJ. By the same standards that make you dismiss the MJ, the HJ should also be dismissed. But you can’t dismiss them both, for what alternatives are there? The TJ? Ha.

Chris Weimer

Notice robto said that he wasn't called God in early writers, and aa said that he was indeed called the son of god, but not god himself. :huh:

Colossians is post-Pauline. If all you have are vague references like these, then you've built your castle out of mere sand. It doesn't hold up.

This problem disappears when he says that he met Peter and James, the so-called Pillars. :wave:

aa5874

I think you may have mis-understood robto.

In John, Jesus is referred to as the son of God. John 6:69, "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the son of the living God.

Chris Weimer

I did not misunderstand him - you do. robto is saying that Jesus is not called God until John. You dare to give evidence against that by showing that John calls Jesus the Son of God.

I don't see how you did anything at all.

aa5874

No, I quoted Romans 1.3-5 to show that Jesus was called the son of God before the author of John did.

Chris Weimer

But he didn't call him God. My father's name is John, calling me the son of John is not calling me John. My name is in fact Chris.