Amaleq13

I question that it is truly a "scholarly consensus" but it is unsubstantiated speculation.

Clivedurdle

And about born of a woman I see three versions of born of a woman commonly used - Revelations - completely heavenly, Hercules - god lying with a woman, and ordinary human relationships.

So next question , which versions are being used where?

I see two clear examples in the new testament and one doubtful - the clear onesz are the pure heavenly one in Revelation, and the Hercules clone in the gospels.

Paul I see as using the heavenly model possibly confused with the Hercules model, but not the version by which we all got here!

andrewcriddle

Revelation chapter 12 is not an easy chapter to interpret but it seems to be a vision in heaven concerning events some of which (verses 7-12) take place in heaven while others (verses 13 onwards) take place on earth.

The birth of the man child in verse 5 probably is meant to occur on earth. At least the child is caught up to heaven from the region of his birth leaving his mother on earth (compare verse 6 to verses 13 onwards). Although the woman is clearly supposed to be on earth during at least part of the chapter there is (unlike the account of the dragon) no reference to her having been sent down to earth.


Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver

Having taken another look at the earlier reference, I see I will have to modify my position. Apparently it is not true that there was no way some hellenized Jews would deify a man.

Even so . . . .

The PSCO article cites three particular precedents: Moses, Enoch, and the "the venerable man" in Ezekiel the Tragedian. That last one is too vague, I think, to be evidence for anything. That leaves Moses and Enoch. Enoch, according to the story, was spared from death, presumably on account of some unique degree of righteousness. Moses, although he did die, was also thought to be uniquely righteous in some sense. The Deuteronomist wrote: "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face."

And so the question is: What might Jesus of Nazareth have done -- in fact, not in legend -- to have inspired a comparable veneration, and whatever it was, why is there no record of it?

Clivedurdle

And Hercules was born on earth!

all this stuff asbout earth, heaven or in between is irrelevant when we are discussing myth - where was Zeus when he impregnated Hercules mum?

And God walked in the garden in the cool of the evening...

Solo

My view evidently lacks a conclusive proof. I am aware of that and therefore make no claims to its historical verity. Incidentally, I am not an orthodox apologist who claims Paul worshipped the earthly Jesus and adorned him with a royal pedigree. I am saying Paul locked horns with the followers of the earthly Jesus, transparently accusing them of idolatry, and ridiculed their credentials (presumably of personally knowing Jesus). It was a principled stance.

Now, your position strikes me just as speculative as mine. It lacks historical corroboration. You say Paul did not mention certain events because they did not happen. How do you prove that ?

Paul mentions the crucifixion in a number of places. It is an event of central importance to him. In 1 Cor 2:2, he says 'I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified '. Now, you will note that my little theory can point to this verse when explaining why Paul is not interested in the servant Jesus' trials and tribulations on earth. Can yours ?

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why Paul would not be interested in the sublunar wonders of JC before the monsters nailed him. Pray tell !

He does not mention them because in his "Christ crucified" scenario they are "rulers of the age". Pilate does not matter to Paul: the tortured and resurrected Son revealed in his body does.

These are a product of later Christian imagination. These "events" do not have the making of history.

Judas is a later invention, I think everyone agrees on that.

Again, this is devotional material, and I have no problem with setting it aside as mythical adornments, or a "historical Korsakoff" if you know what I mean.

Pilate, we know from Josephus, was known to execute non-Roman prisoners without a trial. It is more likely than not, that Jesus, being mostly an unimportant nuisance in Jerusalem, was nailed by Pilate without ceremony or philosophical debate.

If it helps you in any way, I believe that if Paul had read the Gospels he would have gone glossolalic. Yes, he would have seen mostly his own creation making the earthly rounds, but he would have abhorred the implied idolatry and the falsification of truth about the earthly Jesus that the gospel stories represented.

As I said, he would have seen most of it as rubbish. Paul saw the earthly Jesus as a deluded fool, sorcerer and blasphemer. When the light struck Paul he reckoned the poor guy whom he badmouthed either got dealt fate from the bottom of the deck or he was actually God's true progeny. Paul made his choice and stuck with it. That's all that matters, I think.

Jiri

jjramsey

What might Jim Jones have done to have inspired his followers to kill themselves? What might David Koresh have done to have inspired his followers to think he was the messiah? The idea that Jesus required anything other than personal charisma to get people to venerate him seems rather naive.

TerryTryon

I don’t know why I did it except for the pure satisfaction of reading something through, but I have read, in the past three days, every single post on this discussion. I must say that the threads in this sub-forum on the controversy of whether Jesus is myth or history are every bit as tedious, misinformed, and silly as the ones on the evolution sub-forum that deal with the survival advantage of homosexuality.
While I am in awe of some who have so much knowledge of Greek, Latin, and other ancient languages as well as the various texts, I dismay that these same “scholars” lack even the rudimentary principles of rhetoric and logic. For example, what is the gain of parading for ridicule a simple typographical error in which the “l” in circle was in some way duplicated?
Is the “Jesus” in the New Testament—if indeed the various different formulations of this god of the Christians can be said to have enough internal consistency to be categorized as a single personage at all—have a historical precedent? The answer to this is, “Of course not.” The NT Jesus is always presented as a supernatural entity and what place he has in history as presented in the NT as such is badly shoehorned into a milieu for which the unidentified writers writing at an undetermined time had no firsthand knowledge and no primary source material. There is no history for the NT Jesus Christ. One can try to pull knowledge from ignorance, as a magician draws a rabbit from his hat, but in the end, it is all smoke and mirrors. Evidence is lacking. Evidence is not forthcoming and everything written about irrelevant minutia that illustrate only that one has an outstanding grasp of ancient languages will not change that fact. It only substantiates the fact that there is nothing here but grasping at straws.
Now I have a ream of paper printed with pure silliness. I wish I had more endurance in reading from a computer screen. Maybe, I could have spared myself a ream of paper and a substantial portion of the toner in the printer’s cassette.

ynquirer

Do you mean to imply you are smarter than the rest of contributors to this thread or else less smart than them?

jgibson000

Could you point out please just where the threads are "misinformed"? I'd also be grateful to know what your criteria are for judging them so.

How does this show, as you claim it does, a lack on my part of "the rudimentary principles of rhetoric and logic"?

He is? Always? Could you please define "supernatural entity"? I'd also be grateful if you'd give some evidence for you hidden assumption that in the ancient world, presenting someone as a "supernatural entity" or as having "divine" origin, prerogatives, and/or powers was thought to be a denial that they were human, let alone historical.

Jeffrey Gibson