Mythical Christ Gains Favour

[d.thomas]

.


Personally, I always assumed an historical Jesus behind the story, but having read a few books from the mythicist viewpoint as well as the historical, it seems that from a Jewish/Hellenist cultural and historical view of the early centuries, a mythical Christ falls into place in that it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed, at least not as a man that walked the earth. The earliest Christian writings which include the Epistles describe a spiritual Christ that resided in the spiritual realm, that sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary and was known to apostles through revelation, visions.

Philo laid down the theological groundwork for Christianity without mentioning a Christ or writing of a Jesus even though he was in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion. He did write of Pontius Pilate, although his portrayal of a ruthless Pilate is in stark contrast to that of the concerned and caring Pilate portrayed in the Gospels. His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.


There are books and websites that cover a great deal of the aspects involved. The following I recommend in terms of this discussion:


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm



http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/


.

[Cathar1950]

Cathar, you are in love with Ehrman. You daily quote this guy. You talk about crackpots, this guy is not a Christian, he is a self described agnostic, he does not believe in the Bible. Talk about an agenda all he is interested in is selling his books.
He's no different than a used car salesman, if you want to get an accurate account of the truth about the Bible and how it developed i've got about 50 books for you IF you want to know the truth. Why don't you read something legitimate. Start with this: The Missing Gospels Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities, Darrell L. Bock, PH.D. or New Testament Introduction, Donald Guthrie. or The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce. These are main stream widely accepted recognized authorities on the N.T. I have Ehrmans books, the guy is selling books, I do not agree with much of his personal interpretation, it is not main stream or widely accepted.

Biker

I may love him but I don’t know if I am “in” love.
Actually I just enjoy his work but I enjoy a lot of people's work.
I just find your comments amusing. I do not daily quote him so that makes you a liar or an exaggerating blowhard that had nothing useful to say. It is irrelevant if the guy is a Christian or not as far as his scholarship goes and it is his once having been a bible- believer that started his search for answers, which is something I can identify with, that makes him interesting. I can see why you would not identify with him but I see clearly where you could identify with a used car salesperson. Do you not think your pet theologians/apologists like to make a buck on their books, At least the ones that are still alive? Your authors do not give an accurate account of truth but are biased and feel compelled to remain mainstream. I have read your authors I still have a few books around of FF Bruce. They are a few of the recognized authorities among bible believers and their work is suspect such as Archer's due to their complete acceptance beforehand of their dogmas that guide their work. I doubt you have read them yourself, where I have actually read them. I suspect like Ehrman’s work you only read some bible-thumping believer with in the literal interpretation of scriptures review.
But you have shown us wonderful examples of how a person can use such fallacies as Argumentum ad hominem, Ex Concessis, The Appeal to Authority, and ad populum. I am sure we could find more if you were a little more articulate.
Even if you are Abusive I have nothing but misericordiam.

I would like to thank Mack for helping me find the names of some of these attributes of Biker.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=2431

[Biker]

Cathar, you are in love with Ehrman. You daily quote this guy. You talk about crackpots, this guy is not a Christian, he is a self described agnostic, he does not believe in the Bible. Talk about an agenda all he is interested in is selling his books.
He's no different than a used car salesman, if you want to get an accurate account of the truth about the Bible and how it developed i've got about 50 books for you IF you want to know the truth. Why don't you read something legitimate. Start with this: The Missing Gospels Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities, Darrell L. Bock, PH.D. or New Testament Introduction, Donald Guthrie. or The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce. These are main stream widely accepted recognized authorities on the N.T. I have Ehrmans books, the guy is selling books, I do not agree with much of his personal interpretation, it is not main stream or widely accepted.

Biker

I may love him but I don’t know if I am “in” love.
Actually I just enjoy his work but I enjoy a lot of people's work.
I just find your comments amusing. I do not daily quote him so that makes you a liar or an exaggerating blowhard that had nothing useful to say. It is irrelevant if the guy is a Christian or not as far as his scholarship goes and it is his once having been a bible- believer that started his search for answers, which is something I can identify with, that makes him interesting. I can see why you would not identify with him but I see clearly where you could identify with a used car salesperson. Do you not think your pet theologians/apologists like to make a buck on their books, At least the ones that are still alive? Your authors do not give an accurate account of truth but are biased and feel compelled to remain mainstream. I have read your authors I still have a few books around of FF Bruce. They are a few of the recognized authorities among bible believers and their work is suspect such as Archer's due to their complete acceptance beforehand of their dogmas that guide their work. I doubt you have read them yourself, where I have actually read them. I suspect like Ehrman’s work you only read some bible-thumping believer with in the literal interpretation of scriptures review.
But you have shown us wonderful examples of how a person can use such fallacies as Argumentum ad hominem, Ex Concessis, The Appeal to Authority, and ad populum. I am sure we could find more if you were a little more articulate.
Even if you are Abusive I have nothing but misericordiam.

I would like to thank Mack for helping me find the names of some of these attributes of Biker.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=2431

Isn't your characterization of me the first on the list Cathar. It takes one to know one, HaHaHaHa! Now thats funny!
I would remind you that, truth is truth, no matter how you characterize it.
Don't get your feelings hurt Cathar, I still love you!

Biker

[Lotan]

Lotan, the more I read, "born of woman, under the law," the more I consider under the law to be reiterating born of woman.

You would be in the minority then.

Paul seems to support this by going on to explain Hagar and Sarah in all its metaphor.

If you don't want to accept the plain meaning that's staring you in the face, then you can find alternative interpretations anywhere, if you're willing to twist hard enough. You only have to believe...

If he's trying to express an earthly Jesus in this way, why not just simply name Mary as the woman.

Because it's a figure of speech. If one calls someone a "momma's boy" do they include the actual name of that person's mother?

Unless we are trying to suggest that Paul doesn't know nor care who his actual mother is leading one to suppose he came to earth in some distant past as Price has suggested.

If Paul's intention was in Gal 4:4 was to tell the Galatians all about Mary, then you would have a point, but as it is he is trying to compare the previously human Jesus with the present spiritual one.

Considering the author of Matthew's use of midrash, it doesn't make the term any less unusual.

Probably because it wasn't unusual in the least.

It doesn't come as a surprise that such a phrase would keep showing up in religious texts.

"It doesn't come as a surprise" to whom? You? Based on your deep knowledge of Hebrew religious texts, no doubt. It was a common phrase. Experts recognize this.

Being born "under the law" is just as unusual to one that isn't familiar with Jewish tradition.

The Galatians would have known all about the mosaic law.

I can only comment briefly now and again as time permits, and thanks for the link.

No problem.

[d.thomas]

---


Lotan, I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. I can't see why the use of a phrase for such redundancy as the "born of a woman" provides if taken literally. Besides, regarding paradigmatic parallels, earthly counterparts to their heavenly ones are not necessarily exact reflections. Christ's sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary's counterpart would be the sacrificial ritual of lambs that priests performed before their altars here on earth.


---

[Cathar1950]

I would think "born of woman" would be anyone but Adam.
While "under the law" makes sense if the mean Jewish unless the mean Noah.

But Paul was abnormally born.

[Lotan]

Lotan, I'm sorry, but I just don't get it.

Are you really sorry?

I can't see why the use of a phrase for such redundancy as the "born of a woman" provides if taken literally.

...God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law...

What redundancy?

Here's another one...

Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father." Gospel of Thomas 15

Besides, regarding paradigmatic parallels, earthly counterparts to their heavenly ones are not necessarily exact reflections. Christ's sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary's counterpart would be the sacrificial ritual of lambs that priests performed before their altars here on earth.

But neither you, nor anyone else has shown that "paradigmatic parallels" are Paul's intention here. That's just Doherty's excuse.

[Goat]

Lotan, I'm sorry, but I just don't get it.

Are you really sorry?

I can't see why the use of a phrase for such redundancy as the "born of a woman" provides if taken literally.

...God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law...

What redundancy?

Here's another one...

Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father." Gospel of Thomas 15

Besides, regarding paradigmatic parallels, earthly counterparts to their heavenly ones are not necessarily exact reflections. Christ's sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary's counterpart would be the sacrificial ritual of lambs that priests performed before their altars here on earth.

But neither you, nor anyone else has shown that "paradigmatic parallels" are Paul's intention here. That's just Doherty's excuse.

In context of the "Gospel of Thomas", it seems that it is being claimed Jesus was an ordinary baby. Not virgin birth, not 'Son of God' at that point.

[Cathar1950]

Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father." Gospel of Thomas 15
.

Would or could that be Adam?
Or the second Adam?
I enjoyed the Thomas quote.

But neither you, nor anyone else has shown that "paradigmatic parallels" are Paul's intention here. That's just Doherty's excuse.

That seems to be the problem; we don't know what Paul was thinking.
Yet some Gnostics found just the symbolism being referred to in his writing early on, sometimes without the earthly counterparts. Doherty and d.thomas might be wrong yet right for many of the various groups. Granted by the 4th century the orthodox had a foothold but Gnostic ideas didn't just fade away nor did the poor Ebonites. It is still under the skin itching. Are we ready to give them another chance or is orthodox the only right way to look at it?
They may overstate their case and I don't think it is necessary. The diversity of ideas and practice can speak for themselves.

I was just reading about ancient Hebrew myths and the bible.
They had a lot of stuff on Lotan. The 7 headed freak of chaos that forever must be held back even after it has been vanquished.
Of course there are other stories from other places and times. Just like the early church that left these stories and documents that were found important to people 1800 hundred years ago. It is a good thing they destroyed or didn’t bother with copying some or we would have more to confound us.

[catholic crusader]

What is circular reasoning?

It's right because it's right because it's right because it's right.

Can you back that up with anything?

It's right because it's right because it's right because it's right.

Is their any concrete rational to back up that position?

It's right because it's right because it's right because it's right.

Can you provide any concrete evidence that it's right?

It's right because it's right because it's right because it's right.

Do any other source's confirm it?

It's right because it's right because it's right because it's right.

We don't agree can you prove it?

It's right because it's right because it's right because it's right.

But what if it's wrong?

It's right because it's right because it's right because it's right.

Do you base this on anything?

It's right because it's right because it's right because it's right.

Okay so you are trying to tell me that It's right because it's right because it's right because it's right.

Yep.