Malachi151

I consider them all spurious of course, but I'm saying that the ones after the 4 canonical gospels are unarguably spurious. Those are defiantly based on a combination of the other Gospels, plus obviously made up stuff. We don't have to debate as to whether or not they contain "real history".

Atheos

I guess my whole point is that all the gospels are essentially "made up stuff". Each individual document ostensibly reflected things believed by the writer(s) of said document. I think you're applying an inconsistent standard by willingly accepting the four canonical gospels as "the one, and only one, source of information about the life of Jesus", when none of them deal with actual events. I'm not trying to be argumentative ... well, maybe I am :devil1: ... but what's the difference between what you're doing and if I were to arbitrarily declare that "Moore's poem, 'A Visit From St. Nicholas' aka 'The Night Before Christmas' is the only real source of information about how Santa Claus delivers christmas presents."?

Ben C Smith

Four, of course. At least.

Ben.

Jayrok

I'm about halfway through the article and I'm enjoying it. Nicely done. I do have a question or two however. During the part where Paul is speaking of Jesus being a mystery I don't see some of it as you do. Specifically, in Ephesians 3:

Ephesians 3:
1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— 2 for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, 4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: 6 that is, the Gentiles have become fellow-heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

I see this passage as Paul saying the "Mystery" here is that now Gentiles have become fellow-heirs and sharers in the same promise in Christ through the gospel.

An earthly Jesus, as depicted in the gospels, said he came for the lost sheep of Israel, which might indicate he wasn't interested in the disposition of gentiles. Paul says the mystery revealed to him is that Jesus also came for the gentiles and this mystery has been revealed to him through the spirit, hence his new target audience... the gentiles.

I'm intrigued at the idea that Paul wasn't referencing an earthly Jesus Christ and enjoy what you've written (Earl Doherty as well). But I'm not sure about Paul's mystery being what you say it is. At least not in this example.

I'm looking forward to finishing the article and moving to the second. Thanks

Jay

Malachi151

You may be right about the mystery being that the gentiles have become fellow heirs, that is a good call, but Paul nevertheless says that this mystery is revealed by the Spirit, no by Jesus.

I think that you will like Part II more, because it focuses more on Paul.

Jayrok

Looking forward to it.

I find Paul's gospel in relation to the Jerusalem Apostles' gospel fascinating. On the one hand, if Paul's gospel is Jesus' truth and the law and rituals like circumcision are abolished, or nailed to the cross, why didn't the Jerusalem apostles preach this same gospel? Why were Peter and company still teaching circumcision and other Jewish customs and rituals (dietary laws, etc) years after Jesus' death? All the while filled with the Holy Spirit who was sent to guide them and remind them of what Jesus taught. If Jesus "fulfilled" the laws, making them obsolete for physical practice, why didn't the original Apostles get the memo?

On the other hand, Paul isn't having much luck convincing the Jews of his gospel, so he declares "from now on, I'm going to the gentiles" (Acts 18:6). Once again, if Paul's message is the true message of Christ, and the other Apostles were on the same page as Paul in this gospel, why didn't Peter and the Jerusalem gang have the same trouble with the pious Jews as Paul and his group?

Atheos

Can't help noticing that you didn't address I Cor 11:23-25 or I Cor 15:3-8 in your treatment of the proposition "The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life". HJ'ers might think your silence on these passages results from a reluctance to deal with them. Both of them appear to chronicle specific actions performed by Jesus while on earth, especially I Cor 15, which specifically lists people with whom various interactions took place.

Still only about 3/4th the way through the first article. Call me a slow reader. Still enjoying it.

Malachi151

I address that in Part II.

gurugeorge

Wow, that's really very impressive, and nice production values too Thanks for taking the time and trouble to bring all that stuff together.

AS to Holding, it's odd, I've noticed that sometimes with some people, they feel they've got licence to be extra-rude and contemptuous in a way that's supposed to radiate savvy and toughness and an overall command of the situation, but is actually kind of oddly geeky and inappropriate? Dunno how to describe it actually.

Malachi151

I'm working on a self-publish book based on these two articles now, plus some additional information, plus its going to be re-edited and all combined into one format instead of two articles, where I address the Jewish apocalyptic stuff first. I should be done with it next week. Its going to be mostly the same as the articles though, but filling out a few things a little more and going more into the history of JM over the past 200 years.