openlyatheist

Over on John W. Loftus' Debunking Christianity blog, someone mentioned Boyd and Eddy's The Jesus Legend.

I've googled, and checked Doherty's and Price's homepages, but haven't been able to find anything (non-apologetic) on it except this ancient thread. Does anyone know if this book is any good or if D & P have interest in responding to it? Proponents on Amazon like JP Holding tout it as a breakthrough.

Toto

The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Amazon has a useful 3 star review here

Peter Kirby's notes on a debate between Price and Boyd.

There is a more recent thread on another book by Boyd here that mentions The Jesus Legend. Boyd seems to be sort of post-modern. He would like to argue that miracles were possible, therefor they happened, therefor Jesus is Lord. If you reject the supernatural, or if you think that the supernatural requires a lot more evidence than some ancient unreliable document, you get stuck about there.

If you check this thread, Robert Price said some nice things about Boyd and Eddy. But then he is a gentleman, and he has also said nice things about Acharya S.

Toto

The author of the original post there has an interesting story of his deconversion here

stuart shepherd

What a great story!
The author's story emphasizes the importance of the debate on the resurrection that is presently underway on this forum.

Stuart Shepherd

Jayrok

The "800 pound gorilla" blog discussion in the OP is interesting. I always wondered, if Jesus lived and taught that there were no unclean foods and that circumcision isn't important (as Paul taught), then why did the Jewish disciples continue to teach Mosaic law observance (including circumcision and abstaining from unclean foods) for many years after Jesus' death. In Acts, they come to a compromise with Paul's teaching with regard to the gentiles. But how long after Christ's death was this?

The 800 lb gorilla post adds another interesting point to the early christian landscape and Paul's teachings. If Paul taught that Jesus was a divine (even God himself) man who recently lived and preached as God encarnate, where was the uproar from the Jewish contingent?

They were up in arms about Paul teaching converted gentiles that circumcision is useless, yet they thought this more important an issue than the nature of Jesus' divinity... being God encarnate, clearly idolatry to the Jews? On the other hand, if Paul taught a spiritual Christ, the nature of Jesus being both human and divine wouldn't have any need to be contested.

The dialog in the blog is interesting. Well there is one preacher, Harvey, who basically just cut/pasted excerpts from articles from the Christian Think Tank and seemed to pass them off as his own. But all in all a good read from DC.

John Kesler

Jesus never taught that the law regarding clean and uncelan animals or circumcision was abolished. He touches on circumcision in John 7:22-23, but never says that it is unnecessary. Mark 7:19 is usually cited regarding unclean meats, but the declaration that all foods are now clean appears to be a parenthetical comment of Mark or a later hand.

Jayrok

And I agree with you. Jesus never taught the law was abolished.

My statement was more towards Christians who might insist that Paul's teachings were consistent with Jesus' teachings, i.e., all of the disciples and Paul were on the same page with regards to teaching those issues (circumcision and unclean foods). So I ask "if Jesus taught" that all foods were clean and circumcision is not necessary (as Paul teaches), then why did the Jerusalem Apostles continue observing and teaching Mosaic Law?

Since the Jerusalem church leaders continued Mosaic Law observance well after Jesus' death, and we only begin to see anti-circumcision messages from Paul, it would appear that either Jesus never taught it and these teachings originated with Paul, or maybe he did teach it and the disciples just forgot or chose not to follow it. The former seems more plausible.

John W. Loftus

Thanks so much!

Zenaphobe

I am reading How Jesus Became Christian (or via: amazon.co.uk) and the author suggests that in the early stages of the church there were two separate movements, one of the Jewish believers called the Jesus Movement and of the Pauline believers called the Christ Movement. The argument is that the Jesus Movement were following Christs teachings from a Jewish perspective, observing the Torah as Jesus said was required for righteousness, and the Christ movement shifted away from following Jesus to worshiping him.


He contends that the Book of Acts creates the relationship of Paul to the Jesus movement in Jerusalem by having Paul associated with them after his Damascus road experience, being baptized by Ananias and then going to meet the apostles with Barnabas (Acts 9:10-19).

This contradicts Paul's account in Galatians, where after the Damascus experience, Paul "did not confer with any human being" (Galatians 1:16). but went immediately to Arabia (Galatians 1:17), and then 3 years later went to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James.

The question is why Acts has Paul making a connection to the Jesus movement in Jerusalem in spite of Paul's own account of waiting 3 years to do so? The author contends that the writer of Acts does so to give the impression that Paul's Christ movement is just an extension of the Jesus movement.

This was to give Paul legitimacy to the Roman population who were skeptical of novel things, but rather had an affinity for movements that had antiquity, like Judaism. The prospect of circumcision and observing the Law would not make a good sell to the gentiles, so Paul needs to have his gospel without those requirements,but still be affiliated with the Jesus movement for legitimacy.
,
Acts has Paul exempted from preaching the Torah observance and circumcision of the Jesus movement by his meeting with James (Acts 15:13-21) and preaches a Gospel suited to the Gentiles.

The author argues that Paul's letter to the Galatians seems to undermine the idea that there even was a meeting with James over the issue of circumcision and Torah observance because of how Paul castigates teachers who are telling Paul's church in Galatia that they need to obey the Torah and circumcision.

If there had been an agreement made with James, all Paul would have to do is remind those teachers at Galatia that it had been decided at the council, that Gentiles were exempt from the Law. Instead, Paul argues that those who teach the Law are under a curse, and they are preaching a false gospel.

Instead of being "history", Acts is argued to be propaganda to give legitimacy to Paul's Christ gospel and root it in the tradition of the Jesus Movement so it appeals to the Romans.

History is written (forged) by the winners.

I hope I explained that accurately.

Toto

Welcome Zenaphobe. This board does not support HTML; I replaced your html code with the vBB code, and I replaced your Canadian amazon link with one to amazon.com (the Canadian link is here the book is not yet available in the US.) The thesis sounds dubious to me, since there is little evidence of this early "Jesus Movement." but I can see how it could be argued. The author is highly qualified.

Barrie Wilson web page