Amaleq13

I agree that one can infer it from Paul's language but what does Paul say that requires it?

Chris Weimer

First, you must demonstrate that the all those works are 2nd century. I especially disagree with your dating of Thomas to the 2nd century. Moreover, Thomas seems to preserve a tradition related to but not necessarily dependent on the Synoptics, although assuredly the line became blurred as time went on. Moreover, some theories posit Egerton as a separate Johannine tradition not dependent on the gospels, although most recently that has been called into question. Personally, it doesn't matter to me - I've built no case on Egerton.

More likely the gospels got it from Paul, so that's a non-issue with me, but I was wondering why you think that the statements that Paul says come from the "Lord" aren't valid, especially when he already is known to quote at least one directly from Jesus - the Eucharist as you mentioned.

I've already said that I think the JS is flawed. It was actually Dr. Gibson who chided me on that. Please don't connect me with the JS - I didn't vote with them, I haven't read their book explaining what they did, I wasn't at the conference, and I don't know how they did it. I'm working entirely independent of JS, especially since I disapprove of their way of voting the text. Poor form in my opinion.

Once again, the JS is not relevant here.

But he does claim that the original Christ was entirely mythical - a god who was later historicized. Thus the sayings are attached to the mythical Christ. Whether or not they came from someone else is irrelevant to his thesis. I take the opposite direction, that the historical Christ said some of those things, which of those can only be determined with probability, which the JS did manage to get right, and that we'll never be sure exactly, which I have made this explicit elsewhere, but also that this historical figure was later deified and his life embellished.

I would think, thus far at least, that there exists a core sayings going to one person. Don't ask me which ones yet, though, I'm getting started.

Chris Weimer

Paul doesn't say anything that requires either a mythical or historical position. We're talking about probabilities here, and we've always been talking about probabilities. My first blog post on the subject was actually rather negative - we'll never be as sure as we are with some figures. Or at least not until some new significant discoveries are made which tips the scales one way or another. Personally, I see the evidence in favor of my theory and not Doherty's. This language of yours and others about "requiring" this and needing that, it's gibberish in biblical studies, and by now you should know that. By know, all of you should know that no one's 100% positive of their identifications, that theories change all the time, and that if the langauge required a certain reading, than there would be almost no debate on the subject.

Amaleq13

I didn't get the impression from your statements that "probably" was implied. I don't recall it being actually stated and you really didn't seem to be leaving room for any other interpretation. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do but "my" language was inspired by the impression I obtained from your language which seemed a bit more certain than your clarification indicates is the case.

Personally, I tend to think Paul had an actual person on earth in mind but I'm not convinced he had a specific person in mind. I like to think of it as Doherty's thesis only with a "historical Jesus" who was simply one of the numerous crucifixion victims of the two centuries preceding Paul. The Descending Son took his mission to be executed without the "rulers of the age" knowing his identity so seriously that no one knew he was there until, much later and at the "appropriate time", he appeared to certain chosen individuals who had been searching Scripture for an understanding of why the Messiah refused to appear and free them from the Romans. Paul didn't know the name the Son used while "taking on the appearance of flesh" and didn't care because it was irrelevant to the sacred name the Son received upon being resurrected (ie God's Salvation). How do ya like them apples?

Chris Weimer

It's valid so far. I can't dissect it entirely at the moment, for one because I'm working on kata sarka (and wish people would alert me to sources about Paul's relationship with Hellenistic thought) and because I'm writing a longer reply in the other thread about the recent events that transpired.

I'll be right back.

Amaleq13

I posted a link in your thread that might interest you.

And that is the worst Terminator imitation I've ever heard.

Malachi151

I argue that using any modern translation of the Bible is useless. Unless you have Biblical writings from prior to at least 400 AD, then they are useless.

The extra Biblical writings are a much better source, since they tend to have been altereed less.

The books of the Bible are a fine source, but only if we can get texts from BEFORE the Bible was constructued.

To point to passages in a text today, as if these would not have been altered leading up to and during the construction of the modern Bible in order to fit the Church's then adopted "Jesus was both God and Man" position is quite a bit of nonsense.

Chris Weimer

Agreed. You do say this knowing Greek, right?

I disagree. Unreliable, yes, but not useless.

The burden is on you to show that the texts were altered in such a way to dampen our understanding of the original writing.

So basically you argue that the entire Bible was written by the church? If not, then why is the entire Bible useless?

youngalexander

It matters not one iota to someone of my ilk whether Jesus was an historical figure or not. It is an interesting historical question, but I do not have any emotional baggage invested in it. To me, the origin of Christianity is of far greater interest. True, the question HJ/MJ has an important bearing upon that larger matter, but it is the origins which are of primary interest.

I would suggest that this cannot be the case for a committed Christian. A belief in an HJ is an integral part of Christianity as it has come down to us. Thus I think that it is a very real and reasonable question to ask: How objective can a believing Christian be when considering the MJ/HJ question? For such a person to decide that ‘on the balance of probabilities’ Jesus was indeed mythical involves far more than the question at hand. It constitutes nothing less than the denial of their faith.

It has been sed (by various people) that:
We are all atheists, it is just that some of us believe in one less god than others.

It might also be sed that:
We are all mythicists, it is just that some of us reject the historicity of one more salvific godman than others.

Clivedurdle

I see no a priori reason why a believing xian should believe in an HJ- Freke argues this.

My pentecostal background in fact makes faith in an mj more plausable - the issue then is to argue with the xians that mj is OK - it makes no real difference to their beliefs as they already accept a supernatural world in interaction with this one - historicism is in fact tying god down too much!

Bring on mysticism, sufism et al!