Vinnie

Pau lsays its a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. This obvious invokes the embarrassment criteria.

You also have MAJOR glaring problems.

1. Backreading (eisegesis) the modern times into Paul's era you bifurcate between Christians and Jews. Christianity eventually evolved out of Judaism but at this early stage it was entirely Jewish. Your bifurcation is anachronistic and incorrect.

2. The Gentile mission occured very early. Christians were trying to win converts. Crucified Jesus not appealing in itself to Gentiles. Chruch would be creating its own problems.

Vinine

Vinnie

So your argument is that Christians authors did not have to defend a crucified Jesus? I'll go dig up some of the primary literature a little later.

We can start with OPaul. We preach Christ CRUCIFIED--stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. It doesn't say "Christ RESURRECTED."

The arguments, coming from the mid second century show how it was viewed during that time period. The Jewish historian Josephus described crucifixion as "the most wretched of deaths" or "a most miserable death" (Jewish War 7.203) In Seneca's (died ca. 65 C.E.) Epistle 101 to Lucilius suicide is preferable to the cruel fate of being put on the cross.

Not to mention the OT and hanging on a tree (see. DT) It was avoided in Polite Roman society. Numerous other commentators offered opinions on the issue. Circero and Plautus and Varo and Zeno. THis alone tells me it was NOT merely the claims to the resurrection that were disputed.

Also, if I recall correctly, the great skeptic of Christianity Celsus DOES NOT object to a virginal conception. He object to the fact that a person "like Jesus" could have been virginally concieved. Its the same for a crucified Jesus. It undermined him in so many eyes and it started in Paul's day at the latest.


This is a might assertion.

In the light what of what Jews had been schooled by Deut. 21:22-23 to believe regarding those hung on a tree, let alone what Circero and Plautus and Varo and other Greco-Roman authors say regarding the horror and the impropriety of even the mentioning of crucifixion, and what Zeno tells about the absolute irrationality of dying as Jesus was known to have died, this hardly seems likely -- and I really have to wonder where your claim is coming from. It certain is not well grounded in primary evidence.


Jesus' followers alleviated the problems by reading the crucifixion in light of the OT. Form critical studies of the passion dictate this.

And I thought Paul contradicted the Gospels on this? Jesus is son of God at baptism in Mark (adoptionism). Death and resurrection in Paul?

Not to mention Jesus was a man. He is recoreded as having family and walking the earth. The whole divine aspect "CAME LATER" as you already agreed above. Why backpeddle now?

Vinnie

Vinnie

pagan worship. What about Jewish worship in Palestine? There lies ytour problem.

LOL Nice posioning of the well. Crossan denies the resurection and supernatural miracles and most of the Gospel accoutns of Jesus. I hardly think disputing the death of Jesus would be so personally crumbling to his doctrine.

Crossan offers the same arguments as virtually every other scholar, whether Jewish, Christian or other. Multiple attestation and embarrassment.

Vinine

Vinnie

This is not a stawe man on my part. Doherty is simply wrong. He misunderstands Paul the self-proclaimed Jewish Pharisee and so many other things in early Christianity.

Also, any multiple attestation or the crucifixion completely undercuts Doherty. He must also view the passion traditions as somehow dependent on the Pauline kerygma. Burton Mack might agree with him but the majority of NT scholars accept Paul and Marcan independence.

Vinnie

Vinnie

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

When I stated up above:

Yeah. Matthew Mark, Luke and John are reliable at reconstructing what Christianity was like from 70-100 C.E.

Take Mark's portrayal of Jesus' opponents and the nullification of the food laws as one VERY SECURE example of Christians projecting later views back onto the historical Jesus.

But by reliable, if you mean "historically accurate" then no. The Gospel of John least of all.

Or how about this one:

I did not intend to. I agree with the objection. The Gospels are not historically reliable.

Or this one:

[b]The birth narratives are not historically relaible and they contradict one another. [/qupte]

Or this one:

As far as the Passion accounts those are largely non-historical as well. The brute fact of crucifixion emerges, possibly all by its lonesome. The accounts of Jesus' death are not strict--reliable straighforward history accounts. Extremely little can be affirmed on historical grounds as having occured.

Or this one:

A harmonized four-fold Gospel Jesus is as mythological as Zues is. The "Jesus Christ" of the Gospels is a mythological chimera. I speak of "Jesus ben Joseph", the man underneath the embellished harmonized portrait of Jesus in the canon. I speak of the Jesus ultimately behind Q, Thomas. Pre-Markan traditions, the Jerusalem school, the original disciples and so on.

Or this one:

They contradict one another? So what. They should. The cross was initially embarrassing and Christians made stuff up to alleviate this. Errors are expected.

Apparently you missed all these comments FROM THIS THREAD. This thread has a first page. Why not try reading it?Or go to the formal debate where I am demonstrating errancy through a detailed treatment of Mark on the food laws which shows he is projecting beliefs onto the HJ:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=79512

Or read one of the 75 articles I wrote on my site:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri.html

Vinine

capnkirk

NO VINNIE! I assert that Paul's was chronologically the first assertion of a crucifixion of a human/divine figure named Jesus, and that most (if not all) of the other (allegedly) independent attestations can be traced back to Paul. Not the same argument at all.

Personally I lean towards the existence of an HJ (not an HJC), who was crucified, whose followers were observant Jews waiting for their human messiah to return, that Saul DID persecute these followers, and that his cathartic epiphany on the road to Damascus marked the interjection of the christ concept into an otherwise ordinary story of a failed Jewish messianic candidate, but this thread is not the place to pursue that argument. I offer this only as point of clarification because the bone of contention here is not about a "historical Jesus" but about the gospel's reliability concerning a "historical Christ". Your and other Xtians use of the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' interchangeably only serves to muddle the issue. Therefore the presumption must be that whenever a Xtian uses either term, "christ" is implicit, and responses are couched in that understanding.

The gospels were written (or at least extensively edited) by Pauline Xtians far from Jerusalem, and clearly show exegetical signs of it. The only question in my mind is whether there is a historical (exclusively human) Jesus beneath the interpolation or pure myth. The evidence of later interpolation has been clear enough to scholars for them to label the first three as "Synoptic"; that alone should be a red flag warning readers not to be too literal in understanding them. What should follow from that recognition is a thorough and impartial exegetical analysis of the nature and extent of said interpolation. Until that is resolved, no intelligent discussion of the OP can take place. Ergo, most of what has been postulated and argued thus far on this thread is dependent on the results of that study. So, let's quit dancing around and start digging into the central issue. It does not lie in the arguments of Origen or Justin Martyr, or in any of the post 1st century writers, but on the exegesis of GMatt, GMark, and GLuke.

Until we do that, everything else just serves to extend the argument, while getting nowhere.

Llyricist

LOL, This is simply ridiculous...... It IS a strawman if the version of the MJ theory you pretend to refute (with the embarrassment criterea) bares NO relationship to actual MJ theories. Wow, sometimes you blow my mind with absurdities.

Vinnie is simply wrong.

Paul attests to the crucifixion as central to Christian theology, LATER..... the gospel writers come along and HAVE to incorporate the crucifixion into any story they make up about an HJ. So much for "independence"... Mark et al need not have had Paul's particular writings in hand to be familiar with the ESTABLISHED tradition!! Wow, the strained reasoning involved in NT "Scholarship" never ceases to amaze me.

Vinnie

Silly me, I thought that was the case because of the triple tradition material.

Vinnie

Edit "Vommoe"....now thats a typo

Vinnie

""""""""""Paul attests to the crucifixion as central to Christian theology, LATER..... the gospel writers come along and HAVE to incorporate the crucifixion into any story they make up about an HJ. So much for "independence"... Mark et al need not have had Paul's particular writings in hand to be familiar with the ESTABLISHED tradition!! Wow, the strained reasoning involved in NT "Scholarship" never ceases to amaze me."""""""""""

Again you guys show your amatuer skills. Chronologically earlier is only valid if we assume straight line development. SLD is very problematic in ECW research,

And Mark wrote just a few years after Paul. He had a need to incorporate the Pauline kerygma? Since you think he did, prove it. Wait, you can't. Woops. Mark also has a bunch of details not found in Paul. For instance, why the added detail of Jesus being crucified next to criminals, why the followers abandoing him? Peter's denials, Judas' betrayal, etc.

And Paul's "established tradition" speaks of a crucifed man anyways. Its also inherited tradition. Paul is not the inventor of Christianity nor of Christ crucified. He may have championed the latter but thats the extent of it.

Vinnie

Vinnie

If they all can't Paul is not the creator. This is tru by definition as independent attestation of two sources means the tradition predates both of the sources.

"""" on the exegesis of GMatt, GMark, and GLuke.""""""""

I prefer GThomas myself and the reliability of the canonical Gospels is a dead issue if you ask me. Its as dead as mythicism.

Vinnie