Zeichman

Chris, I just want to make sure you know I'm agreeing with you here and in general, it seems. Sometimes e-sarcasm and whatnot is hard to detect and I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or I am misunderstanding you.

I agree that the lack of early writings in the first generation is not significant in regards to an HJ, given the apocalypticism, illiteracy in general, and the marginal (i.e. especially uneducated) nature of early Christianity.

IN regards to Thomas and Q, I'm hesitant to acknowlege the "Son of Man" as being synonymous with Christos. Either way, coming from a more Kloppenborgian opinion, this element is only evident in the later Q-traditions. Specifically about Thomas, I don't recall any explicit references to Messiahship (though some form of incarnation of some sort does seem occassionally implicit/explicit: GThom 52, 61:2-5, 77, etc.)

Chris Weimer

Yes, I understood you correctly.

Right, I was merely pointing out where this might come from.

It's a sticky subject. I might make it the subject of my next post in the series on earliest Christian traditions.

best,

Chris

Clivedurdle

BBC Radio 4 programme this afternoon discussed celtic xianity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/beyond_belief/ ( I didn't think it was that good)

and commented with fall of western Roman Empire land links across Europe just about disappeared but that the sea links to Egypt and the Middle East were excellent. There were Egyptian coptic monks in Ireland in the fifth and sixth centuries and Egyptian motifs are strongly present in things like Riverdance!

Remember these sea links by then were probably a thousand years and more old. (Maybe we should look for the Library of Alexandria in Ireland or Lindisfarne?)

Malachi151

So let me get this straight. The defense of the Historical Jesus basiclaly adds up to:

> The real Jesus was obscure and little known
> The real Jesus was not God or the son of God
> The life of the real Jesus was so little known, in fact, that none of the deatails of his life were known to his followers, thus pretty much requiring that everything that he have been told about him since has been made up because no one knew the "real Jesus".

How much of an account of a person's life has to be true in order for the account to be considered historical? Or are you claiming that the account of Jesus' liffe in NOT historical, but a real, yet unknown to us, historical Jesus did exist, the detials of whose life is not refelcted in the Bible to any meaningful degree... in which case the account in the Bible would not be a historical account of Jesus....

Judaism....

And no more certian...

Many people, yes, the most important figure in all of human history... no. Even if he wasn't seen as importnat at the time, he had at least SOME following.

Okay, this defense of the historical Jesus pretty much requires that the main story of the Christian religion be false, so whatever. I would still think that if he was crucified then the early Christians would have said that his crucifixion was the basis for their worship of the cross.

That's a teaching that had been going among the Jews for hundreds of years.

Because the Bible as we have it today has been altered. The non-Biblical texts tend to be less manipulated. Plus you can't use a book to verify itself.

Also, the Biblical texts are not in chronological order and they are not necessarily the oldest texts.

Toto

I don't get this analogy to the Teacher of Righteousness. Why shouldn't we assume that he is fictional? or at least be agnostic on the subject? Who was he, other than a character in some religious documents?

Not exactly. No one has to dismiss claims of Biblical accuracy by putting their fingers in their ears. The pre-gospel passion account is a construct by scholars who are trying to push the dates of the sources of the gospels back as far as possible, and Paul's letters can't be dated with any assurance - and make fairly vague references to crucifixion in any case.

Chris Weimer

We can be agnostic on the subject. But to assume out and right that he was fictional is assuming too much with too little evidence.

Outright dismissal is putting fingers in ears. But here you aren't doing that. The mere examination of Paul is not dismissing it completely. If and when an accurate date comes to Paul that makes it too late, then absolutely we can dismiss it then. But Malachi wasn't suggesting that. Not only the pre-gospel account, but the apocalyptic tendencies and downright overt Judaism that the earliest traditions attest to make it very probable that Jesus was not an Hellenic myth.

Chris Weimer

How about some more straw to stuff that strawman? I think hay's easier to beat.

If you lose the obvious spin on this, than yes.

Hrm... there goes bye-bye to your little pet theory of Jesus as an Hellenic myth.

I already explained that apocalypticism and fear of imminent parousia would pretty much vouch for no major writings by the earliest Christians. Where are the writings of John the Baptist or of people who knew him directly? Buddha? Yeah. Where are your writings? Do you honestly think that in 2000 years anyone will have your writings?

Where does worship come in? Why can't a teacher be crucified and later believers worship the cross? And yes, any serious inquiry, even light inquiry, reveals that the main story of Christianity to be false. Where do you see me arguing otherwise? Heck, for all I know, Jesus may have well been fictional, but he surely wasn't the Hellenized God that you make him out to be.

Names, names, names. Name some names. In fact, name some names outside of Judaism, since this is where you claimed Jesus to have come.

Show me the alterations that seriously affect question of the existence of Jesus. Once we get those down, then we can get to serious discussion.

That's quite some statement, there. Ever done any text-critical work with Juvenal?

No one is using the Bible to verify itself. I'm using the Bible to verify the existence of Jesus.

Entirely irrelevant. The Biblical texts, compared to what's survived, are actually older than most other texts. What's older is works like Thomas, Q, Passion story (if you buy into the theory), and...what else?

Malachi151

I never said that. I said that Jesus is a composit from many different mythologies that were integrated BY THE JEWS.

It is well documented that Platonic thinking had a major impact on the Jews starting abotu 300 BC or so. The Jews also were influenced by the Egyptian religious movement sgoign on in Alexandira, with their creation of the Horus savior of humanity and son of a virgin religion. Also the Zoroastrian religion had a major impact.

JEWS lived ALL OVER the Mediterranian, in Greece, Egypt, Palestine, Rome, etc.

Furthermore, once the Christian movement made it waay into the society of the "gentiles" in Greece it was furhter transformed there as well.

Christianity and the views of Jesus evolved significantly from the 1st century to the 4th century. Much of this evolution took place within "gentile" Greek soceity. To no surprize, most of the early Christian "fathers" are Greeks, not Jews.

The last time I go over this.

The early Christains worshiped the cross, thats a fact that no one disputes.

The explanation for WHY they worshiped the cross, however, given by the early Christians, has noting to do with Jesus.

Chris Weimer

I don't see how pointing out later religious influences relate at all to what the historical Jesus was. Where are the mythological elements in Thomas? Q? Early layers of Mark? Early traditions in Matthew? Paul?

All you've done is claim that Christ is a composit of different gods, yet have shown nothing of the sort. All this claiming and no evidence.

Nobody's claiming that Judaism didn't adopt influences from other religions, but that's not the argument here. The argument was whether Christ was a composit from these religions. Nothing in your claims show this at all. You don't account for the earliest traditions, you disregard all biblical works with a weak dismissal, and then you distort the views of certain authors to represent your theory.

You tried to present Tertullian as evidence - ever read Apologeticum? That would be a start. What do you think he was referring to when he mentioned that rumors were around that the disciples stole Christ's body? And the "earliest" Christians did know of the crucifiction. What is Paul if not an early Christian? And no, dismissing his works is not valid. If you are to do such, then show why you are doing it. Where's your evidence? And yes, Paul is still reasonably early even without an accurate dating on him. However, if you wish to discuss this, by all means start another thread explaining why you think Paul is too late to count.

judge

Certainly the idea that the Zodiac feartured in Jewish symbolism was around in Josephus time.


JOSEPHUS' WRITINGS - BOOK 3, CH. 7