Vinnie

I take it you really meant "who does not mention". Neither you nor a million Earl Doherty's could ever demonstrate than an author of any NT epistle "did not know no details of an HJ". The thought is preposterous itself--especially coming from a perspective that would accuse me of reading Mark's mind!!!


And I appreciate the comparison of mythicism to bigfoot, creationism, miracles, atrology, UFO's and the like. You got it. I will take mythicism just as seriously as I take those things!

Vinnie

Toto

Okay, not the only early Christian writer who appears to know any details of the HJ, or thought them worthy of mention. The fact remains that there are no details of a HJ until Mark produces his writing.

No, Vinnie, you were the one who raised the comparison of JM to lunacy.

You need to take mythicism as seriously as the skeptical society does UFO's or as seriously as talkorigins does creationism. That means eliminating the mockery, actually reading and understanding what it is about, and producing dispassionate arguments.

Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

Vinnie

For the billionth time, Mark is filled with a lot of pre-Markan material.

Your statement that there are not HJ details until Mark is clearly false and it has been demonstrated so. Feel free to reword this statement now as you did the last one. Once we can finally get you to write what you actually mean we can debate the subject.

Respectfully,
Vinnie

Toto

Can you prove that Mark is filled with pre-Markan details of a historical Jesus? What would those details be? How can you demonstrate that those details go back before 70 CE?

By details I mean more specific claims than the formulas in Paul's letters - born of a woman, died, etc. Details like being a carpenter or the son of a carpenter, preaching to crowds, performing miracles, had 5 brothers and 2 sisters, sailed on a boat on a lake in Galilea, etc etc.

Vinnie

Before I do so, what do I have to prove?

1) Details in Mark about an historical Jesus predate Mark?
or
2) These details not only predate Mark but actually go back to the Historical Jesus?


Vinnie

Toto

You're the one making the assertion. What do you think that you can prove?

If you can't prove that details in Mark go back to a historical Jesus, you haven't proven anything about a historical Jesus, have you? Or am I missing something?

rlogan

Vinnie - that alone places you in the mythological camp. In fact, it would be the single most important criteria for identifying who thinks the story is a myth.

Vinnie

Need I remind you that I was responding to YOUR assertion?

Toto: The fact remains that there are no details of a HJ until Mark produces his writing.

I am going tio start with point 1 later: Pre-Markan material.

Vinnie

NOGO

Finding some common material between Mark and Paul certainly shows that this material predates Mark but does can it show that it is historical.

Let me take an example, the Lord's supper.

We can assume that this predates Mark.
But how are we going to prove that it is historic.

Mark 14:22
While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body."

Why is the bread equated with Jesus' body.

The bread is actually the Word of God and during the Lord's supper it is disseminated to the believers.

Bear with me.

In John this what Jesus says ...

John 6:35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.

... But this is what he actually meant ...

John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

So the bread from heaven which Jesus calls his body is the word of God.

Now to Paul

1 Corinthians 11
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,
21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

Clearly Paul's view of the Lord's supper is the dissemination of the Word of God within the Chruch. Factions cannot possibly mean just the way people each a piece of bread. Paul is talking about factions as with elements of faith. People met to receive the word of God but engaged in debates over what to believe.

So the body of Christ (the messiah and saviour) is the Word of God not the body of a man.

I know Paul also says this
v23:24 ... that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

But if the body of Christ is the word of God then is Paul really talking about a actual flesh and blood human and actual bread.

v26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

... until he comes!
If his death, which is proclaimed, is a human death on earth then why say "comes" instead of "returns".

Finally and this is crux of the matter
in the context of the gospels the word of God which is the body (or bread) is presumably what Jesus thought during his life.

BIG SURPRISE

In the context of Paul's letters the word of God is received by people directly from heaven.

Amaleq13

1. I’m not sure “shocked” is supported by the text but Paul does seem to be responding to questions in the Thessalonian community. They have been told that they would be caught up into heaven when the Lord comes and apparently wondered what would happen to their Christian brethren who had already died. This supports a belief in an imminent appearance of the Lord but it does not require a recent crucifixion.

Vinnie replied:
I hope this "other discussion" includes good reasons why other Christian texts should be used to understand what Paul says here and specifically how those other texts change the apparent meaning of the passage in Thessalonians to require a recent crucifixion. Your response above simply doesn't cut it and there continues to be no suggestion of a recent crucifixion in this passage.

2. I agree but the relatively recent “whatever” that started the “new era” appears to have been the resurrection experiences of Cephas, et. al. Paul describes the death, burial, and resurrection after three days as “according to the scriptures”. That doesn’t require or even suggest that they were recent events.

The experiences were recent but there is nothing in Paul to suggest that the death, burial, and resurrection were also recent. There is no legitimacy to your suggestion that we must read the Gospels to understand Paul. Taking details from those texts and reading them into Paul does not constitute "reading them in context".

Ah, the mighty magic wand of Vinnie! With that amazing device, you do not need to address problems with your argument, you simply wave them away! What nonsense. Not only have I touched your third point, I have conclusively reduced it to a single reference to "James, the brother of the Lord". What has not been touched are the points I raised questioning the authenticity and, assuming authenticity, the literal meaning of the phrase.

You have made no effort to address Origen's explicit denial that the title "brother of the Lord" was due to a blood relationship. As I noted, it is unclear whether he would deny the blood relationship, itself. Regardles, your claim requires that we interpret the title literally and Origen says otherwise. I would add that the evidence from Josephus hardly suggests we give the appearance of the phrase "James, the brother of the Lord" a pass. That phrase and the more earthy variant ("brother of Jesus (called Christ)") are connected to a subsequently deleted interpolation and a disputed extant reference. The latter includes an apparent reference from Photius, writing in the 9th century, where his copy apparently read "brother of the Lord".

You have also made no effort to explain why this phrase must be interpreted literally when Paul clearly uses the plural form more often in a non-literal way of referring to fellow Christians. Last, you have offered absolutely nothing but a wave of your imaginary wand to explain why a reference to the Risen Christ as the blood brother of anyone makes sense within the context of Paul's stated theology.

If you want your argument to be accepted, you have to respond to specific objections raised against it. Otherwise, simply declaring the argument "untouched" just looks like a bizarre way to avoid admitting you have no legitimate response.

How kind of you to be willing to work under an "assumption" supported by the actual text of Paul. It is not an "assumption" but a FACT that Paul never describes anyone as a disciple of the living Jesus. I'll grant that there may be plausible explanations for this besides a mythical Jesus but the evidence of the texts requires no assumptions.

And I would call that sloppy thinking. There are no disciples in Paul's description of the origin of the eucharist tradition. There is no evidence in Paul that he considered Cephas to have been a follower of the living Jesus.

I readily admit that other Christian texts explicitly declare that Cephas/Peter was a disciple of the living Jesus. Reading that claim into Paul, however, is not a legitimate method of understanding Paul even if you don't accept it.