GakuseiDon

But, haven't you allowed that people could be converted based on oral rumours, and that "People couldn't easily search for more information on the ultimate textual source of the oral rumours that reached them. It's not like he could google it"?

So isn't what we see in eBarnabas consistent with that?

But, more to the point: If Christianity started with an MJ, I think you would agree that eBarnabas is consistent with that, i.e. some kind of a transition, where the author has a basic awareness of a person who had been on earth, but no knowledge of Gospel-like details.

And if that is true for Barnabas, could it not also be true for the Pauline letters? After all, Paul called Jesus a man who was descended from David and Abraham; came from the Israelites, etc. What would stop us from thinking all the early epistles fell into this category, of believing that Jesus had walked the earth, assuming an MJ origin?

Toto

An oral rumor seems pretty insubstantial as a conversion tool.

So are you agreeing with Doherty?

aa5874

Please, Myth characters are believed to have the ability to walk on earth.

Why can't you even tell us what Paul claimed in Galatians ??

Galatians destroys ALL claim that the Pauline Jesus was human.

The Pauline Jesus was DIVINE--non-historical.

1. Paul was NOT the Apostle of a HUMAN being. Galatians 1

2. Paul did NOT get his gospel from a Human Being. Galatians 1

3. The Pauline Jesus was God's Son. Galatians 4.

The Pauline writings are compatible with the Canon.

The Belief of existence in any form is NOT evidence of existence.

EmmaZunz

"But, haven't you allowed that people could be converted based on oral rumours"

If HJ were true, there would not have been mere rumours, but a clear set of traditions being passed along as part of the conversion.

EBarnabas is consistent with late traditions being invented and rumoured long after Xianity started.

I don't think Pauline letters show any HJ. The "brother of the Lord" could well be scribal interpolation; all our manuscripts are too late to rule it out. Davidic descent could likewise be interpolated; or I think more likely it could have some mystical interpretation that we can't grasp, just like I can't understand how Jesus could be called the "root" of David in Rev. 5:5, 22:16. It's notable that Mark has Jesus deny Davidic descent (Mk. 12:35-37), so maybe Mark recognised the oddity in giving MJ Davidic descent and tried to wipe out that claim?

EmmaZunz

The Gospel tradition is a fantastic meme. As soon as people started hearing about the Gospel Jesus, many would have been fascinated and would have adopted HJ into their belief-system.

Remember in my theory they were already MJ Xians (they weren't converted to Xianity on the basis of HJ rumours), so the idea of HJ would have been really exciting to some people.

I find that I agree a lot with Doherty because his book is so good! There is so much in there (JNGNM) that when I think of something or need to know more about something interesting, I look up in the index and he always has good points to make.

If you want to know if I believe something in particular, what?

aa5874

You are promoting fairy tales. You have NO source at all that show an historical Jesus.

The Gospels describe a DIVINE Jesus, who was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, the LOGOS that was God the Creator. The Gospels did NOT historicise Jesus they confirm that he was ALL MYTH.

Please, do not be led astray by people who have NO interest in the ACTUAL WRITTEN statements in the Existing Codices.

The Gospels in the Codices did NOT historicise Jesus they CEMENTED his Mythology.

The authors of gMatthew, and gLuke after having used gMark DECLARED Jesus the Son of a Ghost.

See Matthew 1.18-20 and gLuke 1.26-35.

And then to seal his Mythology in gJohn 1 Jesus was the LOGOS of God and Creator.

GakuseiDon

I think that once you start preferring a meaning that we don't understand to one that we do understand, debate starts to become less meaningful.

Let me put it this way: What I am proposing is that Doherty's idea of "limited" historical writers like eBarnabas opens the door to viewing others in the same way. Paul provides similar clues, like:

[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)"

and

Rom 9:3: For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites... 5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came]...

I know you suggest that "seed of David according to the flesh" might have some mystical meaning that isn't clear, but we have at least the plain meaning available to us.

If I proposed that Romans was written by someone like the eBarnabas author, in that he shows a limited awareness of a HJ, but doesn't include Gospel details because, like eBarnabas, he doesn't know any (since the origins of Christianity was in an MJ and Paul had recently attached a HJ to his previous beliefs), would that explain everything we see in Romans? Is there a reason why it COULDN'T be the case?

(Edited To Add: Note that I'm not looking at some definite conclusion or "QED" moment here, just trying to analyse the early literature along the lines proposed by mythicists to see how their analysis stands up.)

EmmaZunz

I suppose there is so much un-HJ stuff in Paul, and so much silence, that I prefer to look for non-HJ interpretations even of the prima facie HJ-looking details.

"Kata sarka" is obviously a highly contested phrase. Whenever Paul says "kata sarka" about Jesus, just imagine what he doesn't say: e.g. "when Jesus was at Bethsaida", "with the disciples in Galilee", "at his birth in Bethlehem". Nothing that nails Jesus down as a man (no pun intended).

What is clear, is that Paul never says (in page after page after page of his writings) anything like: "I met so-and-so who told me that when they saw Jesus, he did this, and said that, etc., etc.." Not even with regard to Cephas or James, or any of those who are supposed to have spent plenty of time with HJ.

I'm sure you are very familiar with the scores of Pauline silences and scores of Pauline moments where he seems to be talking only about a heavenly Spirit-Jesus.

The fact is we don't understand all Paul's theology, so sometimes he will have thought something we don't understand. "Kata sarka" is obviously a philosophically laden phrase for him, not a simple designation of human-ness, that seems plain to me.

Paul is obviously a pretty confident guy in terms of trusting in his revelations, but he does say somewhere he went to Cephas, James, etc., to check he wasn't "running in vain". But he never apparently asked them about HJ. He doesn't say they had any special relationship with Jesus.

I just don't see any HJ in Paul.

GakuseiDon

But for my point I am assuming an MJ-origin for Christianity. What I am saying is: If eBarnabas is an example of a Christian who believes in some kind of HJ but is silent on Gospel details, then why isn't Romans such an example? You can't say "it is the silence", because that is what it is expected, given Doherty's analysis.

Do you see why this is not relevant to what I am arguing above? I am assuming that Christianity started with an MJ, so we wouldn't expect such details. Instead, according to Doherty's "transitional" form of MJ-to-HJ, we get writings like the Epistle to Barnabas. So why can't Romans be such an example?

aa5874

How is it you forget Paul had WRITTEN sources that state Jesus died for OUR SINS, was buried and was resurrected on the THIRD day???

What else did he get from those WRITTEN sources????

1 Cor.15 Only Christian Scriptures contain the Blasphemy that a man died for OUR SINS, not Hebrew Scripture.

None of the Epistles Pauline and Non-Pauline contain any details of the life of Jesus because the Jesus stories were ALREADY known and PUBLICLY circulated.

The writings of Justin Martyr SHOW that the Memoirs of the Apostles and Revelation by John were known and publicly circulated before any letters of Paul up to the mid 2nd century.