Duvduv

Make a case for what? For the fact that in the 4th century there was a YESOOS CHRISTOS (Chi-Rho) belief that had not yet brought in a historical backdrop?! I also DID NOT SAY that the Creed and the epistles were the same thing. All I did was point out what seems to be the case: i.e. that the historical backdrop had not yet developed as it is later founded in the gospels.

aa5874

Your claim is wholly erroneous. NT Manuscipts have been found and dated BEFORE the 4th century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Duvduv

AA, you know about the imprecise dating capabilities and that even experts in this field differ on the century of manuscripts, especially those not subject to Carbon dating. So why bring it up again as some kind of ironclad proof?

aa5874

You employ sources that are undated and become terribly upset that I employ sources that are dated by Paleography and C 14.

Please, I am not interested in your imagination dating of your Jewish sources.

It is well known that Jewish sources may be filled with Mythology and events that most likely did NOT happen.

aa5874

Again, the Pauline writings are about the Resurrected Jesus--Not a Celestial Jesus that was never on earth.

A Celestial Pauline Jesus completely destroys the teachings of Paul that Jesus BODILY Resurrected.

The Pauline writings are ANTI-MARCIONITE Texts and were employed specifically to argue against Marcion's Phantom.

See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

It is implied that the Pauline writer went "all over" the Roman Empire preaching, teaching and writing that he personally SAW the Bodily Resurrected Jesus.

See ALL the Epistles of Paul.

The Pauline writer is claiming to be a witness of the Resurrected Jesus.

1. Romans 10:9 KJV---That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

2. 1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV---Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

3. Galatians 1:1 KJV---Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)


4. Ephesians 1.19---according to the working of his mighty power, 20Which he wroughtin Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

5. Colossians 2:12 KJV---Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

6. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV[[[[And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .

7. Philippians 3:10 KJV---That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death

Duvduv

WHY are you so sure that events from one set of ancient documents did not occur but that events from another set of ancient documents DID occur when you cannot empirically prove either? What are your criteria for choosing one set over the other set, other than the criteria of FAITH?

Duvduv

AA, that's a nice selection of JC material from the emerging JC religion that was inserted into the letters as composites.....

EarlDoherty

Maryhelena,

Where did the crucified Jesus come from, if not from Q which had no crucifixion story? Simple. He came from scripture. Just where the epistles tell us it came from. Everything about the epistles' Jesus came from scripture, which is the only source they ever refer to in making any statements about him, whether personal characteristics, words he 'spoke', the 'events' of his death and rising, even his relationship to David or his connection with Abraham. I have amply demonstrated that in all my books, but they are plain to see on the textual page.

And I would urge you to take your own advice. Keep an open mind on Q. I have a hundred pages arguing for the existence of Q in JNGNM. Where are your pages on arguing against it?

If Richard Carrier thinks that Mark Goodacre has provided a slam-dunk case for no Q, then he has just gone down several points in my estimation of him. Clearly, in dismissing JNGNM as "90% speculation" he must have decided to skip my chapters on Q. The flaws in Goodacre's case are legion.

Don't put all your eggs in Goodacre's basket, mh.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

There is NO actual manuscript called "Q" and you have no way of corroborating its hypothetical contents.

Unknown, never seen, never heard, hypothetical manuscripts are of no value as evidence.

The Epistle Jesus was from New Testament Scriptures----- the Gospel according to John and gLuke.

1. Galatians 4:4 KJV----But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

2. Romans 10:9 KJV---That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

3. 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV---And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

4. Ephesians 5:25 KJV---Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.

5. Galatians 2:20 KJV---I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

6. Galatians 1.3-4----3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4Who gave himself for our sins

7. Romans 5:8 KJV---But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

8. Romans 8:34 KJV---- It is Christ that died , yea rather , that is risen again , who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

9. 1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV---For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

10. 1 Thessalonians 4:14 KJV---For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again , even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Nowhere in Hebrew Scripture do we find the Blasphemy that Jesus died for OUR Sins and gave himself as a Sacrifice for Remission of Sins.

Such Blasphemy is found directly in gJohn.

John 3:16 KJV---For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

John 15:13 KJV---Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 10:17 KJV---Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

The Pauline Jesus is NOT found in Hebrew Scripture--NOT even in the short gMark.

The Pauline Jesus REJECTED the Laws of God.

Galatians 2:16 KJV----Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified ..

The Pauline Jesus is NOT from the LAWS of God.

The Pauline Jesus is from the NEW, the NEW, NEW Testament.

2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV---Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away ; behold , all things are become new.

maryhelena

If this is your position, Earl, that the crucified gospel JC came from an interpretation of scripture (OT), then the gospel JC story stands apart from the Pauline epistles; regardless of what dating is ascribed to either the gospel JC story or the Pauline cosmic JC. Dating of manuscripts is irrelevant here.

In other words: the gospel crucified JC story cannot be interpreted through the Pauline epistles. One cannot view the gospel JC story via a Pauline lens. One cannot read ones interpretation of the Pauline epistles into the gospel story. So, Earl, two unrelated JC crucifixion stories. Two crucifixion JC stories that, as it were, stand on their own two feet. Independent from one another. One JC crucifixion story set in a historical time frame. The other JC crucifixion story set in a timeless context. Now, Earl, you can interpret the Pauline cosmic JC crucifixion any which way - but this any which way - has no relevance to the gospel JC crucifixion story. They are two separate stories.

gMark, as you wrote above, added the “death and rising dimension” to the Q Jesus imaginary founder figure. gMark goes further: “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many”. Thus, within gMark is a storyline that does not need any input from the Pauline epistles. The JC figure of gMark is a ‘salvation’ figure. i.e. your imaginary Q founder figure, an imaginary flesh and blood figure, is deemed to hold ‘salvation’ potential.

What then, Earl, would be achieved by this Q community were it to fuse with a Pauline cosmic JC community? It already has it’s heavenly, resurrected, ‘salvation’ figure. Paul has nothing to offer such a community. They have a straightforward life, death and rebirth/resurrection story. Why would such a community seek to negate the basis of it’s theological ideas and run with Paul’s cosmic crucified JC - as though the crucifixion sacrifice of their imaginary Q founder had no salvation value - and salvation value was only to be found in Paul’s cosmic crucified JC figure? Or was it, Earl, a case of being able to accommodate two JC crucified figures, one, according to your theory, the imaginary Q founder, and the other the crucified Pauline cosmic JC.

Logically, it’s the two crucifixion stories that held sway. In other words; an accommodation rather than a fusing of their two crucified JC figures would provide a forward movement for the two communities. That way would enable both communities to keep their respective ‘salvation’ figures. One salvation figure with relevance for flesh and blood in a historical context(albeit in your theory - imaginary flesh and blood). The other salvation figure with relevance for a timeless intellectual, or spiritual, context. A win win situation for both communities.

Bottom line in all of this: a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic crucified JC figure (a theory advanced by some mythicists) is not only illogical it is also unnecessary. ‘Paul’, whoever he was, had nothing to do with the creation of the gospel JC figure. Whether that gospel crucified JC figure was developed from your imaginary Q founder figure - with OT scriptural interpretations - or was developed from scripture and reflections of historical figures - the created gospel JC figure needs no Pauline input.

Thus the idea, held by some JC historicists that the mythicist position is one of a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic crucified JC figure needs to be corrected. The HJ/MJ debate is not over a historicizing of a Pauline crucified JC figure. The HJ/MJ debate is over the gospel crucified JC figure. Whether that figure was historical or whether that figure was ahistorical. The continual use of Pauline interpretations, by some mythicists, to debate this issue is futile. Pauline interpretations have no relevance to this debate. The gospel crucified JC story is not a historicizing of a Pauline crucified cosmic JC - and as such - using Pauline interpretations against the JC historicists is like aiming blank ammunition to knock out the approaching hungry lion.
----------------------