Bernard Muller

The problem with that is Doherty did not study the sequencing and thinks Paul's Christology was not progressing in those years:
At the times of the meeting in Jerusalem, Paul had not yet embraced tenets like "Son of God", pre-existence or Jesus as the Word. That will come later. And the Jerusalem group needed money. So they were likely to compromise (actually they did), on such claims as Paul having revelation from a Jesus in heaven and having a "gospel" from him.
Later, the gap would enlarge considerably, but the "Nazarenes" were very popular even among Pauline Gentile Christians, and Paul reactivated the collections of money. Actually, for the last one, it was the Macedonians who took the initiative, Paul followed (2Cor8-9). All of that is explained on my website, more so my page HJ-2b.
My site: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/index.shtml
Best Regards, Bernard

Toto

Meta - take pity on my poor eyes! please tone down the color of your posts so it doesn't look like you're shouting in blood.

Doherty is not claiming that a spirit had a human ancestor. He is intepreting Paul's words differently from your interpretation.

If you want to argue with that Paul thinks that Jesus had a human ancestor, you have to claim that "stock of David" must be interpreted literally as "descended from David", that the phrase is not a later interpolation, that Paul never spoke metaphorically or obscurely. Can you support all those points?

Bernard Muller

Do not be offended Peter.
Anyway I explained myself on this topic already.
I sincerely mean what I wrote: since when stating you do not get the point, which I understood was about 2nd cent. Christian authors not writing about 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or 'Son', is offensive?
Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

I'm not offended. I want to know why you continue to believe "I note Doherty, like most apologists and theologians, thinks Christianity appears instantly as a block." when I have shown (to my satisfaction) that Doherty certainly does not think Christianity "appears instantly as a block." Please clarify your stance on that issue.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Why does Paul never have to defend himself for making Jesus into a divine being?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

The point about Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle to Diognetus was just that there are various manifestations of Christianity, including within supposedly mythic-only Christianity, a point which is not only conceded but made by Doherty. There's even a chapter on the "riotous diversity" in early Christianity, which Doherty thinks is due to the lack of a single point of origin.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Jesus active on earth in a spirit form? This is not according to Paul, or the gospels, or even Doherty, who contends that Jesus never leaves heaven (he is crucified there!). Does Doherty say the heavenly Jesus was thought to have a spirit form? That's news to me.

Paul interacted with Jesus in spirit, in visions from heaven. So did the Jerusalem crowd. That is what I meant.

Not the Lubavitchers. Or the Taipings. Or the Mormons. Or the Muslims. Or the Cargo Cults. Or the Scientologists. Or many others. There is no such rule.

This was effectively dealt with above, so I won't repeat.

Vorkosigan

Layman

If that's all Paul meant all he had to say what that Jesus was a Jew. That Jesus was born under the law. And he DOES say those things. So when he says Jesus was "descended from David" he means something more. But you are distorting what Doherty claims. He argues that this is based on OT scripture. And it's very well established that Jews viewed the OT scripture as foretelling a Christ who was descended from King David, not just one who was a Jew.

Normal

Earl Doherty is a crackpot!

Bernard Muller

I already explained myself on this issue and I rescinded in part (I do not claim to be a Doherty expert and know about all his theories).
My own words: "Yes, Doherty put a lot of things into a single pot, and, by chance, with a Jesus crucified coming from nowhere, give us a Christianity as appearing in Paul's letters! At least, on my website, I explained (with evidence) how all the ingredients, as postulated by Doherty (such as Hellenistic, Jewish, Platonic, Alexandrian) came about, and in which sequence. Doherty is very vague how all of that would have happened, does not give any road maps. ..."
So I was wrong into thinking about the "block". OK!

Good question:
- Corinth, Ephesus, Rome were far away from Jerusalem, and the influence of the "Nazarenes" did not go that far (even if they were considered "saints"), even if it is obvious it reached Antioch, possibly Galatia.
- They did not seem to make any waves, possibly because of the collections. Furthermore, except for Peter, they did not appear to go on long journeys (Peter went as far as Corinth, once, right after the Jerusalem meeting, but that's all I am sure).
- Paul's theories (from Apollos) became too well accepted on his own turf, fairly quickly, among Gentiles, whom the Nazarenes were not too interested, except for making them adopt Jewish customs.

However, there are many indications Peter did put a big damper in Corinth on Paul's theories, including the resurrection of Jesus & possibly "Christ crucified", but that vaned away along the years. Also Paul is defending against flesh & blood entering the Kingdom, a belief shared by Jewish Christians and "Nazarenes". And "Mark" tried to stamp out the memory about what Peter was, said and did not say. That's all over the gospel. That would be too long to explain that now and here, but I certainly did that on my website. It's a long story ...
Best regards, Bernard