Doug Shaver

Fair enough.

Steven Carr

What does 1 Clement say about Jesus?

When the author wanted examples of behaviour that his readers would know about, he would talk about Abraham, Noah, Jonah, Lot, Rahab - anybody except characters in alleged Christian history.

Where are the Gospel stories in 1 Clement?

maryhelena

Not that I’m aware of.....

Your chart has misrepresented my position. When I have referred to a Galilean Founder I have been referencing the theory of George Wells. A Galilean Founder is not my theory and hence your putting an *X* in your chart in connection with my name is in error. My theory does not fit in your chart.
As to other theories check out this chart by spin:

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
|
{c:av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Luke Timothy Johnson, Dale Allison
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core preacher existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. A Roman emperor constructed a new religion. In the Atwill version, it was Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}[-]
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}No
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
|
{c:av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
|
{c:av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]Notes:
1. Degrees of affinity between the various Jesuses (as indicated by the divisions between them): Single: close; Dashed: further; Double: little; Solid: none
2. Quotes around the types of Jesus indicate labels needing improvement.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....22#post6572622

That’s Earl’s point of view - my previous point on Earl’s position stands. And I’m pretty sure that authors in creating their fictional characters, and placing those fictional characters in a specific time and place, do not confine themselves to using elements from the life stores of real flesh and blood people who lived at that exact time. Storyline setting is not synonymous with character development. It could be and it could not be. Its up to the creator of the fictional character. In the case of Philip the Tetrarch he did live during the assumed ministry of the gospel JC. And since gLuke has a prophetic time slot - the 70 years from Lysanias of Abilene in 40 b.c. to 29/30 c.e. – then the death of Antigonus, by being bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded in 37 b.c., falls within that time frame of gLuke.

archibald

Yes. I got that bit. Way back. What's still confusing me is how you get to that position while championing historical evidence. If I have to, I'll ask a 4th time. :]

That just sounds evasive. And apart from anything else, not the standard you use when coming to a two-Jesus position. And actually, it's not even correct. Josephus may have his limitations (the list of professional, unbiased writers from back then is pretty short) but his writings are most definitely historical evidence. Perhaps not conclusive evidence, by any means.

I am having real difficulty working out how your position is in any way consistent.

maryhelena

And I notice that you did not respond to my request for clarification on the point you were trying to make in post #102

Archibald asked me if I had coins to support my position - I responded by posting the two photos.

I would suggest that, since you have publicly stated that you "don't bother with maryhelena" - that you stick to your resolve....

As for archibald needed some good luck - methinks that is a bit like taking coals to Newcastle - the Irish you know have their very own supply - not so archibald?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....54#post6905454

maryhelena

Archibald, this thread is not about my ideas......it's about Wells and Doherty. Previously, I have put up a number of threads on positions I hold - don't have time now - but will give you some links later.

Re Josephus - try all that out on Stephan Huller.......

Firstly, you need to state exactly what you think in my position, on this thread, that you find to be inconsistent. Secondly, this thread is not about my theories but about Wells and Doherty. But I will give you some links later....:wave:

PS - FRDB is not like RS - no big monster thread for JC.....

footnote: Actually, now that I think about it - rather than me doing the research - if you are at all interested in my ideas - all you have to do is use the search facility on FRDB for threads that I have started. That's not too difficult.....

maryhelena

GDon, methinks you have been around FRDB long enough to know that the assumption, that Aretas controlled Damascus around the NT time Paul is assumed to have been there, has no historical evidence. Check out the threads...

Well, I just checked for 'Galilean' under Paul's epistles on BibleGateway - and nothing came up! I read you to be saying "IMO the 'base facts'" are as you set them out ie a Galilean prophet. If all you were doing is referencing Wells - then that was not clear. Indeed they are two questions - but the second can't be answered until the question of historicity is settled....

Do I take that to mean that you are not assuming a historical gospel JC - or do I take that to mean that you don't think you are interpreting the gospel JC story as history?

archibald

Ok. No one can say I haven't tried. Repeatedly. I'm beginning to lose count of the number of times. :]

What histotrical evidence do you rely on for your two-Jesus position?

maryhelena

archibald - how many times must I state it - historical evidence is what it is - historical evidence. In this case I produced two coins; two coins that testify to the fact of the historicity of the two figures I maintain have influenced the gospel writers in the creation of their gospel JC figure.

Now, if you find that concept difficult, then there is nothing I can do! I've suggested, as has Doherty, that the life stories of real flesh and blood people, has contributed to the creation of the gospel JC figure.

The concept - taking elements from the lives of real flesh and blood people to add 'color' to created fictional characters is nothing new. In fact it is by doing so that gives fictional characters a perceived 'reality'.

GakuseiDon

I have. And 1 Clement's comment? Does that help to date Paul?

I was referencing both Wells and Doherty. According to Doherty:

The itinerant prophets of this new 'counter-culture' expression announced the coming of the kingdom of God and anticipated the arrival of a heavenly figure called the Son of Man who would judge the world. They urged repentance, taught a new ethic and advocated a new society; they claimed the performance of miracles, and they aroused the hostility of the religious establishment. (Page 3)

As for miracles, there is no question that the Q prophets, as preachers of the kingdom, would have claimed the performance of signs and wonders, for every sectarian movement of the time had to possess that facility. These, especially miraculous healings, were the indispensable pointers of the kingdom. (Page 384)

If that was the case, then Doherty is proposing a whole community of Jesus-like prophets, who interestingly at some point had the name "Jesus" applied to their sayings and to their actions. I'm saying that, given the evidence that Doherty himself provides in his book on Q, and taking into consideration the thoughts of Wells on Q, the more parsimonious conclusion is that the name applied to someone called "Jesus" who actually came out of that community.

Exactly. So why do you keep mixing them together?

When did Paul write, in your view? What does the evidence suggest? What does Wells suggest? AFAIK he is consistent with mainstream beliefs. Let's start with that.

The later.