Layman

Matthew and Luke both refer to John the Baptist as one who is born of a woman. Is he a myth too?

Yes, but the term "born of a woman" does not stress form, it stresses actual humanity. There is no example of it ever being used to refer to anything but earthly human beings.

Amaleq13

I think too much is being read into the similarities. Aren't the cores of these passages simply familiar adages of the time used in different contexts?

No because I don't see how they could accept that "their" Jesus had been crucified if that was not actually the case. I could see them accepting the idea that their Jesus had been raised up and glorified but the cause of death seems like it would have been a "deal breaking" issue.

I'll have to give some thought to the fate of those pesky prophets.

De nada. I think it helps that I really have nothing serious riding on the truth of the mythicist position. I became an atheist while I assumed Jesus to be an historical figure.

Amaleq13

I don't know but I can't rule it out if the passages in Josephus are interpolations.

Then I guess that would have to be another unique aspect to the already unique concept Paul seems to have embraced.

Unique aspects are as troublesome to scholarship as unique events are to science.

Amaleq13

No, my memory is working on this one. My comment was meant to imply that Josephus' original "James, brother of the Lord" was changed by a Christian interpolator to the extant reading.

Photius, writing as late as the 9th century, refers to James as "the brother of the Lord" and he makes absolutely no mention of any reference to Jesus in his Josephus.

Surely you don't expect me to be persuaded by an illogical appeal to numbers?

Layman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amaleq13
Why would Josephus refer to James as the brother of God?

But we know that the reference was already there by the 200s.

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17. "And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the 'Antiquities of the Jews' in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."

If I was relying on a telephone poll of randonly selected Southwestern Bell customers, perhaps not. But I'm referring to an overwhelming consensus of experts on this very issue from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. I hardly think this is irrelevant.

Layman

Let me try and nail this down. Whether you think John the Baptist was a myth or not is irrelevant to this point. The issue is whether Matthew and Luke thought he was a human being. And they used "born of a woman" to refer to him specifically.

So because the Jesus Myth must be true Paul can't mean that "born of a woman" means what every author who used the phrase used it to mean?

Perhaps, but there is no indication that Paul used these terms uniqely.

Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the same reasons, Paul never used "born" for Jesus (which would deny pre-existence), but "come".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amaleq13 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand. How do you understand Paul's belief regarding the "mechanics" of the incarnation? Was Jesus born or did he just come into existence as a human?

I meant the second option. Because for Paul Jesus is pre-existent, Paul never used "born" for Jesus, only "come". "born" would have given the impression Jesus started his life from his human birth.

Amaleq13 wrote:
How do you understand Paul's belief regarding the "mechanics" of the incarnation?

I do not think Paul gave any thought on that, but he specified three times Jesus "come" from a human father (descendants of David, Israelites, Abraham) and (once) a woman (Gal4:4).
Ro1:3 YLT "... concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh,"
Ro9:4-5a "who are Israelites, ... of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, ..."
Gal3:16b "... He [God] does not say, "And to seeds [of Abraham]," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ."

Amaleq13 wrote:
I think you would be better off actually consulting Doherty's book on this subject (or at least his website) rather than rely on my understanding of it. It is the part I had the most difficulty with.

I was hoping you would know about it, since your are a believer (I mean in Doherty) and it is a crucial point for his thesis.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why would Paul want to provide that context (assuming it was not yet known by his audience, which probably was not the case)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amaleq13 wrote:
I assume that if he had "wanted" to, Paul would have. It is simply unfortunate for the historical position that he did not. What I find compelling is the absence of any casual reference that provides an historical reference. That Paul could write so much without giving us anything seems bizarre to me if I assume an historical Jesus.

I agree with your first sentence.
For your second sentence, that did not cause any problem up to modern times. I do not see the very inquisitive Corinthians, always giving problems to Paul, requiring answers about the human Jesus, and where did he live, etc. It was a non-issue.
But a mythical Christ/Jesus, born in the heavens from a heavenly father (descendant of earthlies!) & mother, growing up in heaven as a flesh & blood Jew, being poor in heaven, dying in heaven through a crucifixion (all of the preceding out of sight from human witnesses!) and finally resurrecting in heaven would have created as storm of controversy.
I used "heaven" & "heavens" because of Paul's terminology. Paul never used "heavenly spheres" or "spiritual realm" (but not too much spiritual because it had to be fleshy also!)
For your third sentence, there are some casual references in Paul's epistles about a human Jesus, and historical (as having lived in the past). But you dismissed them earlier.
There are also some in 'Hebrews' which Doherty agreed as being pre-gospel.
For your last sentence, you assume that the 'historical Jesus' was important for Paul. It was not, except for "Christ crucified".

Amaleq13 wrote:
How could Paul have considered the pre-incarnate Savior to be the Messiah without also believing him to be Jewish and "somehow" a descendant of David?

The "somehow" is easy to explain if you would agree about a human father (on earth, of course).
Gentiles or Jews would have a very hard time into accepting this descendant of David, the father of Jesus, would live in the heavens.
Actually looking at:
Ro9:4-5a "who are Israelites, ... of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, ..."
We would have generation after generation of these heavenly descendants. Do you have a better solution?

Amaleq13 wrote:
What other world? How is this different from Doherty's proposal involving the incarnation taking place in a spiritual realm?

I should have written Doherty's world, the spiritual/fleshy realm of his.

BTW, I do not think 1Cor15:3-11 is authentic, but very much a later Christian interpolation.
I listed my many reasons here:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/co1c.shtml#adc

Amaleq13 wrote:
"James the brother of the Lord" with "Lord" being a reference to God.

James, the brother of God? That would be heretical, unJewish, gigantically pretentious.
Do we have any precedent about someone called "brother of God" or "brother of the LORD"?

Best regards, Bernard

mike_decock

Was "Christ" a common label to refer to any "anointed" leader, or did it carry the same connotation implying a specific individual like it does today?

-Mike...

Amaleq13

I'm going to assume you won't mind if I drop the formalities and address you as:

Bernard,


Thanks for changing the spelling of my screen name. On that note, isn't a "q" a legitimate variation of the OT name?

I don't understand how this idea works with the idea of Jesus having a father and mother. He wasn't born but he had parents? How do you figure Paul reconciled that apparent paradox?

In reply to my attempt to get you to access Doherty directly on the "heavenly realms" aspect of his proposal, Bernard wrote:
I know about it in the same way I know about string theory. I tend to favor both but would recommend you read the book (i.e. Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe rather than rely on my explanation.

Doherty seems to be relying on a similar notion described in the Ascension of Isaiah even though this is understood to be a later text. I'm pretty sure his website provides just about everything in the book.

I didn't consider them to be specific enough to qualify as grounding Jesus in history.

I haven't entirely rejected the possibility that Paul's Jesus existed at some time in the distant past. This seems to be hinted at in your posts. Is this a position you favor? I just have more fun trying to find weaknesses in Doherty's proposal by trying to defend it against attack.

Do you think Paul's faith in Christ crucified/resurrected was so strong that he could have embraced it without any knowledge of an historical figure?

Do you think they would have a hard time accepting that Paul's pre-incarnate Savior should be understood to be Jewish or the descendant of David?

Isn't the phrase "according to the flesh" somewhat open to interpretation? Could we read it to mean "incarnated in the tradition of" or something along those lines? The more I read Paul, the more strange his thinking seems to me.

How do you know this about the ancient Jews?

The fact that Paul doesn't seem bothered by referring to James as "the brother of the Lord" or to his fellow Christians as "brethren in the Lord" (Phil1:14) seems to argue against your assertion. While Christ, at the time, may not have reached the Jesus=God stage at this point, Paul's Resurrected Savior seems to have been revered enough to qualify for the same reluctance you describe.

That Philipians reference also makes me wonder how sure we can be about the preposition in question. Could the "brother of the Lord" in Paul be just as easily read as "brother in the Lord" or is the vocabulary too specific?

What about the idea of "Lord" in the context of James being a kind of shortening of "Lord Jesus" as in "God's Savior"? Does that change anything?

PS It only looks like I am throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks

Layman

If I remember correctly, Josephus was not fond of the word, but used it mainly in the TF and at Anti. 20.9. He generally tried to downplay Jewish messianic expectations.