Originally Posted by graymouser

Please post chapter and verse of what you think indicates that Mark's Christology is as high as John's, but in a subtle way.

Originally Posted by Toto

How does Paul fit into this?

If you follow anything resembling the standard dating, Paul is before Mark, and Paul has a very high Christology.

Originally Posted by graymouser

As for the historical person at the core, a mythical Christ makes no sense. The Christ was specifically supposed to be the fulfillment of prophecy on earth, not in some mythical otherworld. Mythicism has at its heart the idea that Jesus was primarily a god-man, not a failed messiah who was elevated to godhood by his followers.

Originally Posted by James The Least

Why should we follow the standard dating?

Originally Posted by James The Least

There is nothing in the NT to support that the authors had ever thought of The Christ as a "failed messiah." Quite the contrary -- he was the most successful Messiah of all time.

Originally Posted by James The Least

Mark is constructing theology, not dispassionately reporting oral tradition.

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

More to the point - there is no objective "standard dating" - there is proposed dating that has been gradually moved further forward and has become urban myth.

Moreover, there is nothing to verify that Jesus lived ~0AD/CE (+/- 4yrs) to ~33/4AD/BCE! Zilch!

Originally Posted by James The Least

Talking about "dates" is almost superfluous in such a legendary environment. Legends evolve over time...

Originally Posted by graymouser

In the past I've been somewhat agnostic with regard to the existence of a historical Jesus, but the whole controversy aroused by Ehrman's book has led me to rethink the main problem I have with mythicism, which I think is something that is generally not addressed.

Historically, the Gospels paint a picture that is the opposite of what we would expect to see in mythicism. I refer specifically to the rising christology of the Gospels as they were written in chronological order (given the consensus dates of modern scholars). That is, roughly, Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John. The meta-narrative of the Gospels is a very powerful one.

Mark: Jesus is the Son of Man, and the Christ - that is, he is not yet a literal "Son of God" - and he expels demons, heals people, performs miracles, preaches, is crucified and resurrected.
Matthew/Luke: Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin through a miracle. He performs additional miracles and has extensive appearances post-resurrection.
John: Jesus is explicitly God, does new miracles, has much different teachings and an elaborate career.

It makes no sense for a mythical invented god-man to progress from being Christ to being God - which, despite the assumptions of a thoroughly Christian culture, were in their time period completely mutually exclusive categories. Paul and Mark are consistent with Jesus as the Christ, that is as the messianic figure heralding the Kingdom of God, without requiring him to be God incarnate. This is more or less consistent with what Jews believed about the Christ (although the idea that he was crucified creates more problems for mythicism). The Christ was anointed by God, not God himself, and in point of fact if we are making someone out to be God, it doesn't make sense for him to be the Christ. Our picture by the time we get to John is of an incarnate God who is called the Christ, a rather incoherent position on its face.

To me, this is the main flaw with mythicist positions: for the most part it assumes that the character who was invented was Jesus Christ the god-man. But that's just not consistent with Mark, unless we read later Gospels back into it retroactively. Mark was not talking about God walking the earth but about the Son of Man, the Christ, who was crucified and resurrected, heralding the beginning of the end of the world. This is entirely consistent with a man who was turned into God, rather than a god-man who was historicized - and this process seems to require a man as its historical kernel.

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have completely MIS-REPRESENTED the Jesus stories in the Canon.

gMark's Jesus is IDENTIFIED as the Son of God.

Mark 3:11 KJVMark 5:7 KJV
Mark 15:39 KJV
Mark 14 It is just a campaign of propaganda when you can ACTUALLY see that gMark's Jesus is described as the Son of God yet continue to give the impression that he was not.

And, the fact that it is claimed people recognised gMark's Jesus was the Son of God is carried over to the other Gospels where the authors copied gMark and made their Jesus the Son of a Holy Ghost of God.

The author of gMatthew copied virtually 100% of gMark and presented a most Non-historical conception and it was followed by the author of gLuke.

The author of gJohn claimed Jesus was God the Creator.

This blatant mis-representation of the Canon ONLY stiffles progress.

Whether or not you believe YOUR Jesus did exist it is IMPERATIVE that you say EXACTLY what is found written in the Canon.

In the Canon, Jesus was the Son of God.

Mark 15:39 KJV