Jesus literal son of God, or son of Joseph?

[Thief]

It's a topic of faith.

That He existed, is not much disputed nowadays.
No one is looking for birth certificates.

That He be the Son of God is a matter if belief, and faith.

 

[dogsgod]

How does this relate to what I was saying? You again fail to realize what the epistles are. They are letters that were written to answer specific questions and problems that arose in specific congregations.

That's right, and a reference to Q could have settled some of those questions and problems, but it never happens.

 

[Oberon]

That's right, and a reference to Q could have settled some of those questions and problems, but it never happens.

1) You don't know it never happens, because you don't know what Q could contain that wasn't mentioned in the gospels
2) Paul does cite a teaching of Jesus found in Q.

 

[dogsgod]

The fact that Paul talks about the crucifixion and resurrection is clear enough proof that the Paul Jesus is talking about is the same Paul as the Gospels are talking about. If you want to state otherwise, you need to provide some evidence.

Paul does not talk about the crucifixion other than to say that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures". He does not talk of anyone witnessing a crucifixion in a resent past, just that it was according to the scriptures and that his ascension into heaven on the third day was according to the scriptures. Matthew and Luke don't have Jesus ascending to heaven on the third day so they must be writing about something they made up themselves, or got elsewhere. Paul and the others that he names have revelations, as in visions, of a risen Christ, possibly a mass hallucination since he describes the appearance before 500 of the brothers. logocian is correct, we don't read of a Jesus of Nazareth until the Gospels appear.

 

[dogsgod]

1) You don't know it never happens, because you don't know what Q could contain that wasn't mentioned in the gospels
2) Paul does cite a teaching of Jesus found in Q.

Mark could be referencing Paul on divorce and we already know Matthew and Luke copied Mark. Q is material found only in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. The Thomas Gospel has many sayings common with Q but divorce is not among them.

 

[blueman]

Read the first chapter of John and Phillipians 2:1-11. There is no ambiguity regarding the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Joseph and Mary were just conduit to carry out God's purpose on earth to redeem mankind.

 

[Oberon]

Mark could be referencing Paul on divorce and we already know Matthew and Luke copied Mark. Q is material found only in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. The Thomas Gospel has many sayings common with Q but divorce is not among them.

You are wrong about Q material. The basis for the Q hypothesis is syntactical and lexical choices common in Luke and Matthew but not Mark. However, Q reconstructions are not made on the basis of what is not in Mark but rather where Matt/Lk differ syntactically and lexically from Mark. For this reason, Q reconstructions contain the teachings on divorce I cited apart from Mark. And there is no evidence any gospel author was aware of Paul.

 

[dogsgod]

And there is no evidence any gospel author was aware of Paul.

 

[fallingblood]

Paul does not talk about the crucifixion other than to say that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures". He does not talk of anyone witnessing a crucifixion in a resent past, just that it was according to the scriptures and that his ascension into heaven on the third day was according to the scriptures. Matthew and Luke don't have Jesus ascending to heaven on the third day so they must be writing about something they made up themselves, or got elsewhere. Paul and the others that he names have revelations, as in visions, of a risen Christ, possibly a mass hallucination since he describes the appearance before 500 of the brothers. logocian is correct, we don't read of a Jesus of Nazareth until the Gospels appear.

Actually Paul does talk about the crucifixion. And that suggests that it was in the recent past, if one looks at the history of Roman crucifixion. More so, Paul does clearly talk about the resurrection. Is Paul referring to a second Jesus who was called Christ who supposedly resurrected? How many Jesus's, who were called Chris, around during that time period?

Logician doesn't stand, in either point. The primary reason is because I doubt he has actually studied the Pauline epistles.

 

[fallingblood]

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part3.htm#3.5 Here, maybe this will give you a little insight on what Paul thought about Jesus.

 

[dogsgod]

Actually Paul does talk about the crucifixion. And that suggests that it was in the recent past, if one looks at the history of Roman crucifixion. More so, Paul does clearly talk about the resurrection. Is Paul referring to a second Jesus who was called Christ who supposedly resurrected? How many Jesus's, who were called Chris, around during that time period?

Logician doesn't stand, in either point. The primary reason is because I doubt he has actually studied the Pauline epistles.

You can't connect Paul with a Jesus of Nazareth no matter how hard you try. The reverse, any connection to a Pauline tradition can be explained by the author of Mark being familiar with Paul's epistles. Mark was written after Paul's time. That is the simplest explanation. The author of Mark was using allegorical fiction to tell of a failed Pauline tradition, and serves to further explain why Jesus' most beloved disciples, Peter, James, and John, are portrayed as complete morons that just don't get it no matter how many times Jesus explains it to them. logician is correct, we don't know anything of a Jesus of Nazareth until the Gospels are written and you haven't demonstrated otherwise.

 

[dogsgod]

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part3.htm#3.5 Here, maybe this will give you a little insight on what Paul thought about Jesus.

Born of a woman, you've got to be kidding. Paul states that he was writing figuratively, and that the woman was Jerusalem. This silliest of references keeps coming up, when is a Jesus was historical writer going to actually read those words in context rather than simply parrot the phrase ad nauseum?

 

[Oberon]

You can't connect Paul with a Jesus of Nazareth no matter how hard you try.

You can. Easily. Which is why it has been done by virtually every expert in any field even related to the historical Jesus. Paul's mention of James alone, Jesus' brother, is enough, as it is attested in the earliest non-christian source we have, Josephus.

The reverse, any connection to a Pauline tradition can be explained by the author of Mark being familiar with Paul's epistles.

Your blindness from your bias is almost staggering, or would be were it not typical of so many mythicists, the vast majority having no expertise in any field of ancient history. You start from the assumption that Jesus is a myth, and proceed accordingly, explaining all evidence not by what it amounts to but how it might (however forced) cohere with your preconceived notions.

Do you have any idea how historians determine literary dependence? It isn't simply by observing that two authors wrote about the same things. That's called multiple attestation, and it is one of the cornerstones of historical reconstructions. What is your evidence that Mark used Paul? Because the mention some of the same things? By that methodology, any historian who describes anything dealt with by another historian is dependent on the first.

You cite Q a lot, as well as Markan priorithy, although I doubt you've read the scholarship on which the hypothesis is based. It isn't based on the fact that all the synoptics refer to the same person or same events or even the same sayings. Syntactic and lexical choices are all key. In other words, you can't make a plausible argument that Mark used Paul simply because they share some things in common. Try demonstrating dependence using actual historical methods. Oh wait... that would require a knowledge of greek and of scholarship in this area, and you have neither.

That is the simplest explanation

No, it isn't. The simplest explanation is that Jesus was a charismatic leader who inspired a following. The most convoluted explanation is one that attempts to ignore all the evidence and well over a century of scholarship to conclude that Jesus never existed.

The author of Mark was using allegorical fiction

Can you cite any type of genre on which mark could be based? I read Price's argument. For one thing, he can't read greek or hebrew. For another, he fails to deal with scholarship in the same way you do. Finally, his arguments are so flawed they are laughable.

 

[Oberon]

Born of a woman, you've got to be kidding. Paul states that he was writing figuratively, and that the woman was Jerusalem.

Citing Doherty perhaps?

 

[dogsgod]

Citing Doherty perhaps?

Galatians, duh.

 

[Oberon]

Galatians, duh.

Really? Where?

 

[fallingblood]

Born of a woman, you've got to be kidding. Paul states that he was writing figuratively, and that the woman was Jerusalem. This silliest of references keeps coming up, when is a Jesus was historical writer going to actually read those words in context rather than simply parrot the phrase ad nauseum?

Where does he state that? Show me where Paul states that he is writing figuratively, and that the woman, who Jesus was said to be born from, was Jerusalem.

 

[fallingblood]

You can't connect Paul with a Jesus of Nazareth no matter how hard you try. The reverse, any connection to a Pauline tradition can be explained by the author of Mark being familiar with Paul's epistles. Mark was written after Paul's time. That is the simplest explanation. The author of Mark was using allegorical fiction to tell of a failed Pauline tradition, and serves to further explain why Jesus' most beloved disciples, Peter, James, and John, are portrayed as complete morons that just don't get it no matter how many times Jesus explains it to them. logician is correct, we don't know anything of a Jesus of Nazareth until the Gospels are written and you haven't demonstrated otherwise.

So if what you are saying is true, the majority of scholars, and Christian writers, from the end of the 1st century are wrong. All of the evidence supporting them doesn't exist. And you are privy to a secret that very few are aware of, and even fewer can prove. Maybe you should start proving what you are saying. Cite some scholarship maybe. Or even suggest a book, or blog on the subject. This way I can actually understand fully what you are saying as I can see where you are getting these ideas.

I would also like to see you show evidence that Mark used Paul. I've never actually heard of that idea before, so I would like to read a little more about that if possible.

 

[dogsgod]

Where does he state that? Show me where Paul states that he is writing figuratively, and that the woman, who Jesus was said to be born from, was Jerusalem.

1What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.


21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. 24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

 

[dogsgod]

.


Richard Carrier:


Paul actually says in the same letter that one woman he is talking about is allegorical, representing the "heavenly" Jerusalem, not an actual woman (Gal. 4:23-31). That this is the same woman is suggested by the fact that this passage perfects an argument connected with the previous one, employing similar metaphors and vocabulary. It is thus consistent with Paul's own writings that he meant Jesus was born from the "woman" who is the Heavenly Jerusalem (thus fulfilling scripture and the logic of Paul's Christology).