Chris Weimer

This question seems more pertinent to the discussion. I think many would agree that it is possible that Christ could have been a myth, but the evidence is best explained by a real Jesus. Let's turn the question on its head: could the story have arisen with a real Jesus?

And once both possibilities are firmly acknowledged, let's move beyond possibility, beyond plausibility even, and into the realm of probability. Which is probable?

jjramsey

One of the arguments against there being a real Jesus is, as Doherty put it, "Christianity was allegedly born within Judaism, whose basic theological tenet was: God is One. The ultimate blasphemy for a Jew would have been to associate any man with God." By this, Doherty seems to mean that the kind of claims made in Colossians 1:15-20 could not have been made by any Jew about a flesh-and-blood person.

The biggest problem I see with this is that the ultimate blasphemy would have been to make a flesh-and-blood person a separate god altogether, to make a complete break with monotheism. This, however, is not what we see in the Pauline epistles. Early Christianity is not a ditheism with God and Jesus as two deities. Even Paul implies that Jesus was second-in-command. From 1 Corinthians 15:26-28:

Even in the non-Pauline epistle to the Hebrews, verses 1:1-3 read:

Doherty maintains that no Jew would ever say this, but even this passage has Jesus as second-in-command by having him at the right hand of God.

The preamble of the Gospel of John, which exalts Jesus further and identifies Jesus as the Word of God, still has Jesus say that he and the Father are one, preserving the monotheism.

Doug Shaver

So, first-century Christians were agreed that God was second in command to himself?

jjramsey

No, I'm saying that in Paul and Hebrews we see an exalted figure who is nonetheless second after God. Notice that I wrote that the preamble of the Gospel of John "exalts Jesus further." There's a subtle but apparent progression, from second-in-command to someone who is not a god but God. More importantly, throughout this progression, monotheism is maintained.

mens_sana

In what way does this tell us that the Jesus Story rose without a real Jesus? As distasteful as it might be for some, I've found it quite handy to distinguish between the "Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."* I read the above as mitigating against a Christ of faith, not against a Jesus of history.

*Loosely paraphrasing Bultmann.

Chris Weimer

It doesn't. Ramsey's whole point was that the Christ story could have arisen with a real Jesus, contrary to Doherty.

mikem

I agree with you that there is a progression - an evolution really from the Jesus of Mark, who proclaims the kingdom, and clearly has some role in it's inaugeration (he act as God's agent), through Matthew and Luke, who play down the more human aspects of Jesus to some extent, and then John's apotheosis to full divine rights. This makes sense if Jesus the Jew was historical, with a following of Jewish disciples, which later came to be dominated by non Jews who were not quite so particular about maintaining the purity of monotheism. I can make no sense of this development if Jesus was created fully formed as a myth.

Thomas II

1.I would say that the more probable is that there was an actual person there.

2.That person was part of a religious subgroup.

3.That subgroup was in a collision course with those running the Temple in Jerusalem.

4. That religious subgroup welcomed women.

5.That religious subgroup practiced asceticism in the desert.

6.That religious subgroup used baptism as an initiation practice.

7.That religious subgroup was waiting for a Messiah.

Now,the part about Jesus being GOD OF THE UNIVERSE...not probable.
Not even plausible...and possible only in mythological terms.
From my point of view, only needed if you are a Roman Emperor trying to create a new religion in order to unite a crumbling empire...

Another issue is the ACTUAL personality and range of this teacher of Light.
Is it probable that his personality was EXACTLY as depicted in the Gospels?
No.
Plausible?....Nah...
Similar?...Yes...

Doug Shaver

OK, I'm with you now.

I agree that Paul's Christology, whatever its actual specifics, would have required (for Jews) some compromosing of their monotheism. According to Doherty, this had already been going on for a long time among Hellenized Jews, and I am aware of no cogent arguments to contrary on this particular point.

So, some Jews could believe in divine (i.e. god-like) entities while remaining ostensible monotheists. Doherty's argument is that they could do so only on the condition that the entities had never been human. He says they would never have deified someone they understood to have once been a man, and it looks to me like that is very probably true.

jjramsey

I don't think we're quite agreeing. Notice that the more exalted Jesus becomes, the more he becomes part and parcel of the one God. Notice how in Hebrews Jesus is called a "reflection," an "exact imprint." He never becomes an independent divinity. This is what Doherty is missing here.