Clivedurdle

I hadn't realised Allegro had argued the same thing.

There are interesting comments about a king in Damascus that make more sense much earlier.

Ellegard argues that Paul's descriptions of church structures - bishops et al - and the hymns are evidence of something much older.

Has anyone argued the NT is originally older than we assume with editing to update it, like the fall of Jerusalem and Hadrian?


We aren't looking at something constructed over four hundred years are we?

Chili

I think the New Testament is important because for a testament to be in force the testator must die and walk away from it to have a story to tell.

Of course the Jew's did not recognize the need for it because they must find their own messiah, as did Joseph the wily carpenter/sheep herder who probably was not a carpenter or sheep herder but just an ordinary but upright Jew (the 'but' here does not suggest that ordinary Jews are not upright but makes reference to the degree of integrity that enabled the event to happen).

Now, as for need, that is a different story. This will just depend on the mythmaker's ability to convince the crown to get behind his promise that he can built them an empire out of the vision he has. If they believe him it works and it will continue to work if he can deliver.

Remember here that in the end there is no God the sky but but just a new improved way towards self realization and religion is just the vehicle needed to get there. From there on anything goes (as in 'all is fair in love and war') as long as it works but with a high degree of duration and extent.

Doug Shaver

I don't think it is at all useful to see it that way.