Community as Author

Image result for Gospel; spread by oral tradition



My argument "Community as author" postulates that if we don;t know the individual authors of the gospels we can still look to the communities that produced the gospels as the authors because they contained not only the actual authors/redactors but many eye witnesses, to the events of Jesus' life. That involves a discussion of the role or oral tradition in the making of the gospels because it was oral tradition that persevered the testimony of the  eye witnesses in the gap between the events and the writing of the gospels. Modern liberal theology has given the name "form criticism" to this discussion.

Form criticism is a philosophy and methodology of Biblical criticism, "Criticism" in relation to the Bible does not mean talking about how bad the Bible is (too long and hard to understand) but refers to a means of analysis in a systematic sense. Form criticism seeks to analyze the historical development of the New Testament by understanding the forms in which the writing developed. The major scholars of that school were Rudolph Bultmann (1584-1976) and Martin Franz Dibelius (1883-1947). The from critics understood the Gospels as folk lore, their major paradigm for this view was the collection of German folk songs which were popular for intellectuals and poets in the 18th century.  They assumed the process was like that of European folklore. [1]

We can see the Folkloric model  is operative today.  In his discussion of oral tradition in the origins of Christianity Michael White speaks of the centrality of  "story telling."
Story telling was at the center of the beginnings of the Jesus movement. And I think we're right to call it the Jesus movement here because if we think of it as Christianity, that is, from the perspective of the kind of movement and institutional religion that it would become a few hundred years later, we will miss the flavor of those earliest years of the kind of crude and rough beginnings, the small enclaves trying to keep the memory alive, and more than that, trying to understand what this Jesus meant for them. That's really the function of the story telling...it's a way for them to articulate their understanding of Jesus. And in the process of story telling, when we recognize it as a living part of the development of the tradition, we're watching them define Jesus for themselves. At that moment we have caught an authentic and maybe one of the most historically significant parts of the development of Christianity.[2]
Yet White does not discount historical basis of the stories, He asserts that those aspects of the history that revitalized the movement would have been passed on. "It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers."[3]

Koester argues, however, that the historical memories are latter tropes, the latter generations reach back for the earlier memories while the first things to be enshrined  in oral traditions are doctrinal and related to the emotive aspects. 



Now what happens as an oral tradition arises about an historical event or an historical person is that, strangely enough, the first oral tradition is not an attempt to remember exactly what happened, but is rather a return into the symbols of the tradition that could explain an event. Therefore, one has to imagine that legend and myth and hymn and prayer are the vehicles in which oral traditions develop. The move into a formulated tradition that looks as if it was a description of the actual historical events is actually the end result of such a development. Only the later writer would bring a report about Jesus' suffering that has the semblance of the report of the actual events, one after another, that happened.[4]

His major example is the hymn on the Resurrected Christ In Philippians 2, Paul is reaching back to one of the earliest bits of church literary.[5] The  problem with such examples is that Paul was not trying to preserve or document the history of the community at that point he was using the hymn to make a rhetorical point. That proves nothing about the development of historical memory in oral tradition in the Gospels.The problem is that the development of for, criticism assumed a story telling mode; based European folklore. It doesn't even consider the way oral tradition was handled in ancinet Palestine. As Bauckham tells us: 
... The form critics at the beginning of the 20th century were working with probably the best models of oral tradition that were around at the time. But we now know a great deal more about oral tradition. They were reliant, mostly, on the way that folk tales were transmitted in European history. And of course, these are the kind of things that were passed down over centuries. It's a very different process, really, from the transmission of gospel traditions over a few decades in the New Testament period. Folk tales were also, by definition, fictional material, and people who passed on fictional material were often interested in creative development of it. They didn't feel bound to transmit material accurately. But we now know far more about oral tradition. We have studies of oral tradition from all societies all over the world, Africa and parts of Asia, and so forth, lots of data about how oral traditions work. And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general.[6]
The first notion about oral tradition that needs to be discarded is the idea that it's like playing "the telephone game." Oral tradition is not wild rumors or randomly spread. It;s not like the so called "telephone game" because that game requires whispers and there are no  controls on what is said. There were most probably controls, because the Jews had a controlled version of oral tradition, through which the Torah was handed down.[7]

  This notion is basically alluded to by White: "So we have to imagine the followers of Jesus getting together around the dinner table probably and talking about their memories, maybe it was the memory of something he actually said once upon a time or maybe it was a glimpse of an image that they had of him."[8] What I am proposing is more formalist. The communal aspects of the early church often get remarked upon, the commune phrase, the communist phase of the gospel. The book of acts comments upon how that period played out: 

Acts 2:42-47 

42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayers. 43 Then fear came over everyone, and many wonders and signs were being performed through the apostles. 44 Now all the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 So they sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need. 46 And every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple complex, and broke bread from house to house. They ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added those being saved to them.
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching," I have an image of Peter standing up among them and saying  today class we  are going to talk about Christian dating. Tomorrow we will cover voting Republican," It's very probable that memorizing some version of the account of the resurrection was part of  the Apostle's teachings.
Stephen Neil wrote  "No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, unless the tradition has been rigidly formulated and has been learned with careful safeguard against the intrusion of error" Neil adds in a fn: "This is exactly the way in which the tradition was handed on among the JewsIt is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian scholar H. Risenfeld in an essay entitled 'The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings' (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form cuticle method."[9] 
Oral tradition in first-century Judaism was not uncontrolled as was/is often assumed, based on comparisons with non-Jewish models. B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans  Authenticating the Activities of Jesus



...[T]he early form criticism tied the theory of oral transmission to the conjecture that Gospel traditions were mediated like folk traditions, being freely altered and even created ad hoc by various and sundry wandering charismatic jackleg preachers. This view, however, was rooted more in the eighteenth century romanticism of J. G. Herder than in an understanding of the handling of religious tradition in first-century Judaism. As O. Cullmann, B. Gerhardsson, H. Riesenfeld and R. Riesner have demonstrated, [22] the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for 'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding', the traditioned 'teaching'. [23] In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it. The word and work of Jesus were an important albeit distinct part of these apostolic traditions. 

Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal.(corrosponding fn for Childton and evans")[10]


In his contribution to the Chilton book,  N.T. Wright says:

Communities that live in an oral culture tend to be story-telling communities. They sit around in long evenings telling and listening to stories--the same stories, over and over again. Such stories, especially when they are involved with memorable happenings that have determined in some way the existence and life of the particular group in question, acquire a fairly fixed form, down to precise phraseology (in narrative as well as in recorded speech), extremely early in their life--often within a day or so of the original incident taking place. They retain that form, and phraseology, as long as they are told. Each village and community has its recognized storytellers, the accredited bearers of its traditions; but the whole community knows the stories by heart, and if the teller varies them even slightly they will let him know in no uncertain terms. This matters quite a lot in cultures where, to this day, the desire to avoid 'shame' is a powerful motivation. 
"Such cultures do also repeat, and hence transmit, proverbs, and pithy sayings. Indeed, they tend to know far more proverbs than the orally starved modern Western world. But the circulation of such individual sayings is only the tip of the iceberg; the rest is narrative, narrative with embedded dialogue, heard, repeated again and again within minutes, hours and days of the original incident, and fixed in memories the like of which few in the modern Western world can imagine. The storyteller in such a culture has no license to invent or adapt at will. The less important the story, the more the entire community, in a process that is informal but very effective, will keep a close watch on the precise form and wording with which the story is told.[11]
Oral tradition is a carefully controlled process. The Jews understood how to learn the words of their teachers and preserve them just as they were spoken. All oral cultures understand how to control the process."No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, [12] Neil adds in a fn: IT is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian scholar in an essay entitled "The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings" (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form critical method.[13] N. T. Wright, critiquing the Jesus Seminar's view of oral tradition as uncontrolled and informal based on some irrelevant research done in modern Western non-oral societies writes:"Against this whole line of thought we must set the serious study of genuinely oral traditions that has gone on in various quarters recently. [14]  Jerome Neyrey says,see also- Bruce Malina & Richard Rohrbaugh, - See also John Pilch, Jerome Neyrey, and David deSilva. [15]



A great review of oral transmission within the gospels can be found in James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered. p. 192-210 is a useful review of the progress from the form critics to now, and from 210ff he makes some proposals about the synoptics and oral narratives.

Personally, I find the work of Birger Gerhardsson quite well done and would recommend the relatively small book The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition for those interested in early Christian oral transmission. Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony is very interesting and has opened (or in other cases, reopened) discussions.

For anyone interested, I think journal articles are probably easier to obtain, some of which do not require database access:


from the Dunn article above: Abstract

The literary mindset (‘default setting’) of modern Western culture prevents those trained in that culture from recognizing that oral cultures operate differently. The classic solution to the Synoptic problem, and the chief alternatives, have envisaged the relationships between the Gospel traditions in almost exclusively literary terms. But the earliest phase of transmission of the Jesus tradition was without doubt predominantly by word of mouth. And recent studies of oral cultures provide several characteristic features of oral tradition. Much of the Synoptic tradition, even in its present form, reflects in particular the combination of stability and flexibility so characteristic of the performances of oral tradition. Re-envisaging the early transmission of the Jesus tradition therefore requires us to recognize that the literary paradigm (including a clearly delineated Q document) is too restrictive in the range of possible explanations it offers for the diverse/divergent character of Synoptic parallels. Variation in detail may simply attest the character of oral performance rather than constituting evidence of literary redaction.








Sources


[1] Richard Bauckham, "A  Critique  of Form Criticism of The Gospels." Third Millennium Ministries, website,  no date listed.
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/43180
(accessed 2/2/18)
these guys have video to down load

Richard Bauckham (M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge; F.B.A.; F.R.S.E) is a widely published scholar in theology, historical theology and New Testament.

[2] L. Michael White, "The Importance of Oral Tradition,"  Frontline:   Jesus to Christ. Originally an episode on a series on PBS, On line version published by PBS.org. oriignally puibloished 1998, online copywriter 2014.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/oral.html (accessed 11/10/18)

White is Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin

[3] Ibid

[4] Helmutt Koester, Ibid,

Helmutt Koester (December 18, 1926-January 1, 2016) was:

John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School

[5] Ibid

[6] Richard Bauckham, "A Critique of Form Criticism of The Gospels." op cit

[7]Howard Schwartz, Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism, Oxford University Press, 2004. p lv

[8] Michael White, op cit.

[9] Stephen Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961, London: University of Oxford Press, 1964, 250. 

[10]B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans* (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus(NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998): 53-55.

Chilton and Evens foot notes:



22. O. Cullmann, "The Tradition," in Cullmann, The Early Church (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956) 55-99; B. Gerhardsson The Origins of the Gospel Traditions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); H. Riesenfeld The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 1-29; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer.
23. Rom 6:17; 16:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6-7; 2 Thess
24. John 19:35; 21:24-25; cf. 13:23; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:1-10; 21:7, 21-23. Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 298-311. 25. On parallels with other rabbis and their disciples and other Jewish usage cf. Mark 2:18 = Luke 5:33; K.H. Rengstorf TDNT 1 (1964) 412-43;.TDNT 4 (1967) 431-55.

[11] N.T. Wright, "Five Gospels But No Gospel,"Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,Netherlands: Knoinklijke Brill ed. Bruce D. Chilton, Craig A. Evans, 1999, 112-113 

[12] Stephen Neil op cit 250

[13] Ibid

[14] NT Wright, op cit, 112-113

He also sights

H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), referring to a large amount of earlier work; Bailey, "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition," 34-54. The following discussion depends on these and similar studies, and builds on Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 418-43; and idem, Jesus and the Victory of God, 133-37.

[15]  Jerome Neyrey, "Group Orientation." Handbook of Biblical Social Values  John Pilch and Bruce Malina.   2000, 94-97.


Comments

im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
"No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, unless the tradition has been rigidly formulated and has been learned with careful safeguard against the intrusion of error" ... Oral tradition is a carefully controlled process.

- There's one little problem with your theory. The gospels are all different. If there was a carefully controlled oral tradition from which the gospels are derived, then why don't the gospels tell the same story? It's absurd to claim that there was one definitive narrative. Clearly, there wasn't.
Unknown said…
I just want to thank you for sharing your information and your site or blog this is simple but nice Information I’ve ever seen i like it i learn something today.

Peace
There's one little problem with your theory. The gospels are all different. If there was a carefully controlled oral tradition from which the gospels are derived, then why don't the gospels tell the same story? It's absurd to claim that there was one definitive narrative. Clearly, there wasn't.

they do tell the same story, The same Jesus says the same kinds of things, has the same friends,family,dies the same, raises form the dead the saem way claimed to be messiah the same way,

There are nuanced differences that is because the oral tradition developed in separate communities, but they all followed the MS of the PMRN.
im-skeptical said…
There are nuanced differences ..

- The gospels are all different, and they contradict one another on key details, not to mention their general Christologies. You can try to reconcile them and pretend they're all the same, but it's impossible to take all that seriously. It's just post-hoc rationalization. Think about it, Joe. If there was a well-controlled narrative, why isn't there just a single gospel that tells it? Why wouldn't any author of the gospel know this narrative and record it faithfully? Your theory doesn't fit the facts.
what did I say?nuanced differences but the same basic story,

the differences because they are written by different communities with different sets of witnesses.The same basis story because it's what really happened.


Matthew 5

he Sermon on the Mount
5 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

The Beatitudes
2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God.

10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Salt and Light
13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.

14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.


Luke 6 20

17 He went down with them and stood on a level place. A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coastal region around Tyre and Sidon, 18 who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by impure spirits were cured, 19 and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all.

20 Looking at his disciples, he said:

“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24 “But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Love for Enemies
27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

see differences but also sames.


- The gospels are all different, and they contradict one another on key details,

No on trivial details the key one's are Jesus' death,burial and resurrection

not to mention their general Christologies. You can try to reconcile them and pretend they're all the same, but it's impossible to take all that seriously.

that's theology, events are not labeled as they happen we have to interpret them people interpenetrating differently



It's just post-hoc rationalization. Think about it, Joe. If there was a well-controlled narrative, why isn't there just a single gospel that tells it?


because they have different continuities doing own thing at the same time



Why wouldn't any author of the gospel know this narrative and record it faithfully? Your theory doesn't fit the facts.


none of the difference are major ,you are trying to make them major because you have a vested interest in disproving it,
similarity between Mark and Egertom 2 which illustrates the Pre mark redaction but the same kind of similarity exits between matthew and makr
\e the coin?"

Egerton 2: "And behold a leper came to him and said "Master Jesus, wandering with lepers and eating with them in the inn, I therefore became a leper. If you will I shall be clean. Accordingly the Lord said to him "I will, be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.

Mark 1:40: And the leper came to him and beseeching him said '[master?] if you will you can make me clean. And he stretched out his hands and touched him and said "I will be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.


Egerton 2: "tell us is it permitted to give to Kings what pertains to their rule? Tell us, should we give it? But Jesus knowing their intentions got angry and said "why do you call me teacher with your mouth and do not what I say"?

Mark 12:13-15: Is it permitted to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not? But knowing their hypocrisy he said to them "why do you put me to the test, show me the coin?"
Anonymous said…
To build on im-skeptical's point, the first account we have of the passion in 1 Cor 15 omits the Empty Tomb. Clearly it was not part of the original narrative.

The next account we have, in Mark, indicates that the resurrected Jesus first met the disciples in Galilee, showing that the Jerusalem appearances were all made up later.

These are BIG differences, that show the narrative changed a lot over the course of the first century.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
And please note, Joe, that you were talking about more than just the sayings of Jesus. You said there was a well-controlled oral tradition that presumably would include the details of Jesus' life, and everything about him found in the New Testament. It's those things that are drastically different between the various accounts in the bible. For example, why are the accounts of the trip to Bethlehem different between Matthew and Luke? And why would Mark leave it out altogether (and say instead that Jesus was "adopted" by God at the time of his baptism), if it was part of this narrative?
Anonymous said...
To build on im-skeptical's point, the first account we have of the passion in 1 Cor 15 omits the Empty Tomb. Clearly it was not part of the original narrative.

We've talked about this before several times, (aside from the fact that the topic is not the res) Koester states that PMPN ends with empty tomb, crosson also agreed,so by AD50 or so they had it,

The next account we have, in Mark, indicates that the resurrected Jesus first met the disciples in Galilee, showing that the Jerusalem appearances were all made up later.

These are BIG differences, that show the narrative changed a lot over the course of the first century.

no those are not big differences we already hashed them out.
see this blog "real contradiction in resurrection accounts?"

In this first one I deal with Pix's alleged contraction on the Galilee thing


see a;so Mark did not invent the empty tomb
Blogger im-skeptical said...
And please note, Joe, that you were talking about more than just the sayings of Jesus. You said there was a well-controlled oral tradition that presumably would include the details of Jesus' life, and everything about him found in the New Testament.

No I did mot say that, if only you could read. yes they memorized the sayings of Jesus and probably many of the pericopes. I never said they memorized "everything," Yes it was controlled but not inflexibly. I am going to do a part two and deal with flexibility

It's those things that are drastically different between the various accounts in the bible. For example, why are the accounts of the trip to Bethlehem different between Matthew and Luke? And why would Mark leave it out altogether (and say instead that Jesus was "adopted" by God at the time of his baptism), if it was part of this narrative?


aid there's room for variation I clearly covered that when I said there multiple communities that accosts fort differences
the amazing thing is the story did not proliferate that is a indication it;s based upon historical accuracy, one story only.


There are no alternate version's of the Jesus story. There are minor differences in different telling's but there are no other versions. For at least 200 years after the original events the very same major outline is kept as it was written in stone. Myth always proliferates but when everyone knows a story is true they don't dare change it. The fact that there's only one basic Jesus story tells us that it's probably a true story.

Argument:

1) Mythology tends to proliferate: multiple story versions are common

2) When historical facts are known to a wide audience, people tend not to deny the basic facts of an event.

...a) eye witnesses keep it stairght

...b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better.

...c) people know the story for a fact and just dont' bother to change it.

3) Story proliforations would probably influence further tellings, thus creating many more documents with different versions of the same story.

4) If a myth proliforates we would tend to find more versions of the same story, when there is only one version we can accept a degree of certainty that the story did not proliforate.
5) We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.
6) The most logical way to account for this single Jesus story is through p2, that everyone knew it was the case, there were too many eye witnesses to spread new versions.
...a) It is illogical to assume that everyone just liked it so they didn't add to it.

...b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.

7)Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.

The main thing that myths do is change. Given enough time, a myth will transmography until the names of the heroes are different, how they died is forgotten and retold so many times, there came to be multiple versions of their death. Myths change over time, but history does not. People remember a basic event they know its real, they don't forget it. Herclues has two deaths, in one he's poisaned, in another shot with an arrow. There are about 14 versions of the Tamuz myth. But there is only one way for the guys at the Alamo to die, there is only one death for Arthur, and there is only one way that Jesus Christ is ver portrayed as dying, that's by the cross. Why? Because that's how he really died. No one could deny it, so no one ever propossed another method.

I have made the argument, on message boards, that there are no alternate versions of the basic Gospel story. The point being, there are many versions of most myths. The fact that with tons of "other Gospels" not a one of them before the fourth century gives an alternate account of Jesus life, death, burial and resurrection is a good indication that everyone knew the basic facts, they were public knowledge because they were history; these things happened before the community of Jerusalem, the whole community was a witness and no one could deny it.Now skeptics have responded that certain alternate Gospels deny the resurrection. They name the Apochraphon of James. This is not true. As will be seen from what I quote below James does mention the resurrection. Some of the latter Gnostics denied the theology of the Virginal conception, but they still allude to the story. They denied that Jesus' death was real, but they do not deny that it happened, only that he was not a flesh and blood being and so could not die. What they accept is that the illusion of a flesh and blood man lived on the earth and was taken for a real person why all who saw him.

That is a fundamental mistake of Dohrtey (the champion of the "Christ-myth" theory), he thinks all the action originally was set in a heavily realm, that is not the case. The Gnostics generally accepted that the illusion of a man was seen on earth and seemed to be living among men. So they just spiritualized the history of Jesus.Below I will quote from several "other Gospels" to show that they affirm the deity of Christ, the resurrection, that they include references to many of the stories and periscopes in the canonical Gospels, and that they assume the general outline of the story that we call "fact."

Of course this in and of itself is not "proof" of the Jesus story, but taken together with the other evidence, it makes a compelling case.


Myths have Multiple Versions

Myths Encyclopedia: Myths and Legends of the world.

"Hinduism and Mythology," accessed 10/23/15
"Most myths occur in several different versions, and many characters have multiple roles, identities, and histories. This seeming confusion reflects the richness of a mythology that has expanded and taken on new meanings over the centuries."

Read more: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Go-Hi/Hinduism-and-Mythology.html#ixzz3pQPJKLPF Or:

Examples and documentation of Multiple versions of myth Mithra

Mithra comes from Persia and is part of Zoroastrian myth, but this cult was transplanted to Rome near the end of the pre-Chrsitian era. Actually the figure of Mithra is very ancient. He began in the Hindu pantheon and is mentioned in the Vedas. He latter spread to Persia where he took the guise of a sheep protecting deity. But his guise as a shepard was rather minor. He is associated with the Sun as well. Yet most of our evidence about his cult (which apparently didn't exist in the Hindu or Persian forms) comes from Post-Pauline times. Mitrha changed over time from Hindu patheon to persian sun god, to mystery cult savior.

(Marvin W. Meyer, ed. The Ancient Mysteries :a Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper, 1987,, p. 201).

Dionysus

The Greek god Dionysos is said to be the god of wine, actually he began as a fertility god in Phrygian and in Macedonia, Thrace, and other outlying regions. The origin of the cult is probably in Asia. (Charles Seltman, The Twelve Olympians, New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Company, 1960.)
In some stories Dionysos is torn apart by the Titans. IN other stories it is Hera's orders that he be torn apart. (Edith Hamilton, Mythology, Mentor edition, original copywriter 1940, pp. 61-62).
Tamuz Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History by Edwin M. Yamauchi Leadership u. Updated 22 March 1997 (prof. of History at Miami University, Oxford Ohio)

"In the case of the Mesopotamian Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi), his alleged resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar had been assumed even though the end of both the Sumerian and the Akkadian texts of the myth of "The Descent of Inanna (Ishtar)" had not been preserved. Professor S. N. Kramer in 1960 published a new poem, "The Death of Dumuzi," that proves conclusively that instead of rescuing Dumuzi from the Underworld, Inanna sent him there as her substitute (cf. my article, "Tammuz and the Bible," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIV [1965], 283-90). A line in a fragmentary and obscure text is the only positive evidence that after being sent to the Underworld Dumuzi may have had his sister take his place for half the year "(cf. S. N. Kramer, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 183 [1966], 31). "Tammuz was identified by later writers with the Phoenician Adonis, the beautiful youth beloved of Aphrodite. According to Jerome, Hadrian desecrated the cave in Bethlehem associated with Jesus' birth by consecrating it with a shrine of Tammuz-Adonis. Although his cult spread from Byblos to the GrecoRoman world, the worship of Adonis was never important and was restricted to women. P. Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth centuries A.D". ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges Isidore Levy, 1955, pp. 207-40).
Here are (not all) basic points of agreement between all Jesus sources from before the fourth century.

All The most basic details about these mythological figures changes and froms mutltiple myths. Who they were, what they stood for, their function, how they lived, how they died, even their country of origin all change. A god like Mirthra begins as an unimportant figure in Indian pantheon and winds up the sun God, the God of shepards in Persian and then something else in Rome. All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.

2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"

3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.

4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker.

5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

6) he was crucified under Pilate.

7) Around the time of the Passover.

8) at noon.

9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

11) That this was in Jerusalem.

There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove.

The most flagrant exception might seem to be the Gnostics who claimed that Jesus was not flesh and blood but illusory so he didn't really die on the cross. Yet, the didn't deny that there was an event where he seemed to die on the cross. Even when their ideology contradicted the history they still could not deny the seeming facts. they just re-interpreted the facts.
The Pixie said…
Joe: 2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"

Paul describes Jesus as of the seed of David. The seed comes down the male line (though the semen, the seed), and that is also the requirement for being a messiah, so Paul disagrees with this claim.

It is absent from Mark.

Furthermore, it is contracted by the genealogies in both Luke and Matthew!

The Virgin Birth was a late addition, added some time after Mark.

Joe: 5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

But the son of God was recognised as an adopted position for the King of the Jews, and that was how Paul and Mark saw him. That is very different to the later view that he was the "biological" son of God, and it is disingenuous to conflate the two.

Joe: 9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

The earliest account in 1 cor 15 omits the Empty Tomb, indicating this was a later addition to the narrative.

Joe: 10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

So odd that Paul decided to leave that part out of the creed in 1 Cor 15.

Joe: There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove.

That is the nature of stories. They get embellished. The Empty Tomb got added between 50 AD and 70 AD, so of course every text written after that time had to include it. The Virgin Birth got added between 70 AD and 80 AD, so every text written since then had to include it.

You do not mention the post-resurrection appearances around Jerusalem, which are absent from Mark. Do you agree that they got added after 70 AD?
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: 2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"

Paul describes Jesus as of the seed of David. The seed comes down the male line (though the semen, the seed), and that is also the requirement for being a messiah, so Paul disagrees with this claim.


Mary was a decedent of David. Her father was seed of David so Jesus was descended from that seed. That is just your conjecture that they would not use that phrase of a guy who was from virgin birth you don't know that, you wont find a precedent,



Furthermore, it is contracted by the genealogies in both Luke and Matthew!

The Virgin Birth was a late addition, added some time after Mark.

You have no way of knowing that. you are just trying trade in the kind of BS argument that fundies are known for,

Joe: 5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

But the son of God was recognised as an adopted position for the King of the Jews,

wrong. Ive pointed this out to you before, the gospels use a phrase of Jesus that is not used of anyone else anywhere, the Greek Monogenase --only begotten son of God.


and that was how Paul and Mark saw him. That is very different to the later view that he was the "biological" son of God, and it is disingenuous to conflate the two.

It's quite stupid to assume that the VB is latter view merely because Paul doesn't talk about it latter view. It's even stupider to assume that that in anyway disproves my argument about community as author, it would have to be endorses by the family from the beginning with James the head of the Jerusalem church,

Joe: 9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

The earliest account in 1 cor 15 omits the Empty Tomb, indicating this was a later addition to the narrative.

two major authorities says Pre mark redaction includes includes empty tomb, it dates to before Paul.

Joe: 10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

So odd that Paul decided to leave that part out of the creed in 1 Cor 15.


he was not teaching the faith to beginners,he was writing about church business to seasoned Christina who knew the full doctrine,so no reason to mention it,



Joe: There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove.

That is the nature of stories. They get embellished. The Empty Tomb got added between 50 AD and 70 AD, so of course every text written after that time had to include it. The Virgin Birth got added between 70 AD and 80 AD, so every text written since then had to include it.

empty tomb is part of the pre Mark redaction written in 50 before that it was oral tradition,

You do not mention the post-resurrection appearances around Jerusalem, which are absent from Mark. Do you agree that they got added after 70 AD?

Koster and Crosson disputed their sources, Crosson thought they all came from different sources,I never said it was so tightly controlled that it could not evolve.But the major outline of the story was always intact.

11/13/2018 01:37:00 AM Delete
The Pixie said…
Joe: Mary was a decedent of David. Her father was seed of David so Jesus was descended from that seed. That is just your conjecture that they would not use that phrase of a guy who was from virgin birth you don't know that, you wont find a precedent,

If (and it is a big "if") Mary was a descendant of David, then the seed stopped at her. She was a woman, so had no seed.

See if you can find precedent for a potential messiah descended from David through a woman. There have been several. Heck, you have two geneologies of Jesus to look at. Any women either of those direct lines of descent? No? Ever stop to wonder why?

Joe: You have no way of knowing that. you are just trying trade in the kind of BS argument that fundies are known for,

And you have no way of knowing it was not. But as a typical fundie, you trade in your own BS argument.

The fact is that what evidence we have points to the Virgin Birth being made up after Mark.

Pix: But the son of God was recognised as an adopted position for the King of the Jews, and that was how Paul and Mark saw him.

Joe: wrong. Ive pointed this out to you before, the gospels use a phrase of Jesus that is not used of anyone else anywhere, the Greek Monogenase --only begotten son of God.

Where does Paul use that term?

How about Mark?

Please indicate the verses, because I do not think they do. I do hope you are not referencing something in, say, John, and pretending that that shows what Paul and Mark believed decades earlier.

Joe: It's quite stupid to assume that the VB is latter view merely because Paul doesn't talk about it latter view. It's even stupider to assume that that in anyway disproves my argument about community as author, it would have to be endorses by the family from the beginning with James the head of the Jerusalem church,

It is quite stupid to assume the Virgin Birth was known prior to Mark, when we have zero evidence of that. And yet you persist in doing so.

Read this verse:

Mark 3:21 When his family[b] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

Are we supposed to believe that an angel visited Joseph and told him Jesus was destined for greatness, and another said the same to Mary, who then gave birth to him whilst still a virgin, and later wise men traveling from different lands gave them great presents, but somehow they forgot this, and when Jesus starts doing miracles, rather than remembering what the angels and the wise men said, they assumed he was out of his mind!

Rather more likely is that there were no angels, Virgin Birth or wise men, and so when Jesus started his ministry, his family were taken entirely by surprise.

Joe: two major authorities says Pre mark redaction includes includes empty tomb, it dates to before Paul.

They also say the Empty Tomb was made up. Which is probably why Paul omits it.

Joe: he was not teaching the faith to beginners,he was writing about church business to seasoned Christina who knew the full doctrine,so no reason to mention it,

And yet he did mention the burial. Why? If what you say is right, he had no reason to mention that, or the appearance to Peter or ...

The fact is that Paul was reciting a creed. Seasoned Christians knew the full doctrine, exactly as Paul recorded it - probably word-for-word. And the Empty tomb is absent.

Joe: empty tomb is part of the pre Mark redaction written in 50 before that it was oral tradition,

Some scholars believe it was in pre-Mark, but they still think it was made up. I am not aware of any evidence it was part of the oral tradition - and the creed in 1 Cor 15 very much says otherwise.

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: Mary was a decedent of David. Her father was seed of David so Jesus was descended from that seed. That is just your conjecture that they would not use that phrase of a guy who was from virgin birth you don't know that, you wont find a precedent,

If (and it is a big "if") Mary was a descendant of David, then the seed stopped at her. She was a woman, so had no seed.

that's a silly way to think about it. Jesus was a seed and he was the product of David's seed. But That's an irrelevant argent because it has nothing to do with the community passing information.

See if you can find precedent for a potential messiah descended from David through a woman. There have been several. Heck, you have two geneologies of Jesus to look at. Any women either of those direct lines of descent? No? Ever stop to wonder why?

The are both direct lines fro David The fact that the woman prices Jesus is not a negation of the seed concept,that is stupid.

Joe: You have no way of knowing that. you are just trying trade in the kind of BS argument that fundies are known for,

And you have no way of knowing it was not. But as a typical fundie, you trade in your own BS argument.

you don't know shit about theology, you do not know what a fundie is, or you would know I'm not one, all you know is fundie ideas because that's all atheists deal with,

The fact is that what evidence we have points to the Virgin Birth being made up after Mark.

There is no such evidence, you are basing it on argument from silence which is not real evidence,

Pix: But the son of God was recognised as an adopted position for the King of the Jews, and that was how Paul and Mark saw him.

Joe: wrong. Ive pointed this out to you before, the gospels use a phrase of Jesus that is not used of anyone else anywhere, the Greek Monogenase --only begotten son of God.

Where does Paul use that term?

He doesn't have to use it,Paul did not invent Jesus being son of god It;in the PMPNB, It is used in Hebrews 11:17 taht is Pauline circle.

How about Mark?

Please indicate the verses, because I do not think they do. I do hope you are not referencing something in, say, John, and pretending that that shows what Paul and Mark believed decades earlier.

Paul and Mark did not invent Christianity,Please learn what scholarship is stop taking your ideas from atheists.John is more authoritative hat Pauli or mark because he knew Jesus and they did not. Your assumptions about realities writings are fallacious,

Joe: It's quite stupid to assume that the VB is latter view merely because Paul doesn't talk about it latter view. It's even stupider to assume that that in anyway disproves my argument about community as author, it would have to be endorses by the family from the beginning with James the head of the Jerusalem church,

It is quite stupid to assume the Virgin Birth was known prior to Mark, when we have zero evidence of that. And yet you persist in doing so.

again your founding premise is wrong, it's based upon atheist crap rather than scholarship. no subnormal thinks Paul and Mark invented Christina, To think if Paul didn't mention something it didn't exist is extremely stupid.

It's also very irrational to think the cultus could take ground changing ideas with no problem 50 years after the word is set in stone.

this is Just a red Herring, it has noting to do with community authoress, it's not the result of oral tradition




Joe: two major authorities says Pre mark redaction includes includes empty tomb, it dates to before Paul.

They also say the Empty Tomb was made up. Which is probably why Paul omits it.


so what? they are not basing that on fact but on the presupposition of their ideological liberalism, but PMR is matter of textual criticism.

Joe: he was not teaching the faith to beginners,he was writing about church business to seasoned Christina who knew the full doctrine,so no reason to mention it,

And yet he did mention the burial. Why? If what you say is right, he had no reason to mention that, or the appearance to Peter or ...

Not in the connection of explaining doctrine,the supposition that he had to mention the res ut;s just obsession. You have never mentioned your wife on this blog, are you having problems? not mentioning something means it doesn't exist right? we can assume you are single and unemployed right? You never talk about family or job,?

The fact is that Paul was reciting a creed. Seasoned Christians knew the full doctrine, exactly as Paul recorded it - probably word-for-word. And the Empty tomb is absent.

Because they didn't need to hear it, he was not lecturing on the basics of the Gosepl,

Joe: empty tomb is part of the pre Mark redaction written in 50 before that it was oral tradition,

Some scholars believe it was in pre-Mark, but they still think it was made up.

Irrelevant and unimportant


I am not aware of any evidence it was part of the oral tradition - and the creed in 1 Cor 15 very much says otherwise.

bull shit, noting 1
cor says there was no empty tomb! that's a lie,


11/13/2018 05:08:00 AM Delete
see now students they lost the argument, they failed to prove that oral tradition ran amauck an led Christina astray from the facts of the Jesus event.

Now they Have changed the topic from did oral tradition lose the facts to did the early church make up the facts so they can play what aboutism.

Anonymous said…
Joe: that's a silly way to think about it. Jesus was a seed and he was the product of David's seed.

Through the male line. Have you found an example of a king or potential messiah who was not a descendant of David exclusively through the male line?

Have you wondered why that is?

Joe: But That's an irrelevant argent because it has nothing to do with the community passing information.

It illustrates how the community preserves information, but also embellishes it. So the genealogy of Jesus via the male line has been preserved in both Matthew and Luke, when they also have the later embellishment of the Virgin Birth.

Joe: The are both direct lines fro David The fact that the woman prices Jesus is not a negation of the seed concept,that is stupid.

Fact is that both Luke and Matthew traced Jesus descent exclusively through the male line. The Jewish kings (not the Hasmoneans, who were not Davidic at all) all traced their descent exclusively through the male line.

Joe: you don't know shit about theology, you do not know what a fundie is, or you would know I'm not one, all you know is fundie ideas because that's all atheists deal with,

When you just assume the Bible is literally true, that is being a "fundie".

Your argument is that I do not know, and that slight doubt means that you are right. That is nonsense, as anyone with any academic background would realise. If I can show that A is 90% likely to be true, and hence I do not know that it is true, only a "fundie" would conclude that A is therefore wrong.

Joe: There is no such evidence, you are basing it on argument from silence which is not real evidence,

I am basing it on what is written in Luke and Matthew, two genealogies that have Joseph as the father. Hardly a silence!

It is also based on what we know of the predicted messiah; a direct male-line descendant of David.

Also, remember what this thread is all about. You are claiming that the narrative does not change significantly. An absence of the Virgin Birth in Mark is damning to that claim. It proves that the narrative has indeed changed.

The idea of a Virgin Birth is a pagan concept, one that got adopted as Christianity became fully gentile (and likely Jesus' family were dead).

Joe: He doesn't have to use it,Paul did not invent Jesus being son of god It;in the PMPNB, It is used in Hebrews 11:17 taht is Pauline circle.

He has to use it if you are claiming Paul's believed in "only begotten" on the basis of that word!

Fact is, Paul never used "Monogenase", so your claim that "Monogenase" shows that Paul believed Jesus was God's only begotten son is nonsense.

And Hebrews 11:17 is about Abraham's only son!

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c]

Your whole argument is based on trickery and deceit. Surely you must realise by now that I will check your Bible verses and see what they really mean?

Pix
im-skeptical said…
I never said they memorized "everything," Yes it was controlled but not inflexibly.
- Do I need to remind you what you said (here)? We were discussing the whole narrative of the gospels. I said that oral tradition was notoriously plastic. Your reply was: "No that's bull shit there's a lot of scholarship showing that they kine how to control it like thke Bards in Ireland who could memorized huge poems longer than the Iliad not miss a word". So you were implying that it was not just selected quotes that they memorized. Now you're backing off that and confessing that it was "flexible".

aid there's room for variation I clearly covered that when I said there multiple communities that accosts fort differences
- And my point and Pix's stands. These are more than minor variations that you can paper over. Was Jesus adopted by God that the time of the resurrection (Paul), or at the time of the baptism (Mark), or was he made by impregnating a virgin (Matthew and Luke), or did he always exist (John)? These are different stories that evolved over a period of decades. You can't pretend they all tell the same story. They don't.

Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.
- The story reflects the evolving MYTH that was propagated by cultists whose objective was to recruit more believers. It became more and more fantastic as the years passed.

there is only one way that Jesus Christ is ver portrayed as dying, that's by the cross. Why? Because that's how he really died.
- You just showed us Talmuds that claim he was hung.

I have made the argument, on message boards, that there are no alternate versions of the basic Gospel story.
- You are denying what is written in black and white. Some aspects of the story are consistent. But other crucial aspects are NOT.

The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove.
- Retold countless times and grew more and more unbelievable as it evolved. Nobody disagreed until those damn skeptics came along.


Joe: that's a silly way to think about it. Jesus was a seed and he was the product of David's seed.

PxThrough the male line. Have you found an example of a king or potential messiah who was not a descendant of David exclusively through the male line?

Israel had a queen who sat on the throne and her son succeeded her

Have you wondered why that is?

Joe: But That's an irrelevant argent because it has nothing to do with the community passing information.

PxIt illustrates how the community preserves information, but also embellishes it. So the genealogy of Jesus via the male line has been preserved in both Matthew and Luke, when they also have the later embellishment of the Virgin Birth.


That is not a case of the community letting in a bad idea because oral tradition is crap it;s an example of one way they interpreted things nothing to do with oral tradition,

Joe: The are both direct lines fro David The fact that the woman prices Jesus is not a negation of the seed concept,that is stupid.

Fact is that both Luke and Matthew traced Jesus descent exclusively through the male line. The Jewish kings (not the Hasmoneans, who were not Davidic at all) all traced their descent exclusively through the male line.

No The northern kingdom Israel has a queen, Luke is Mary's genealogy,


Joe: you don't know shit about theology, you do not know what a fundie is, or you would know I'm not one, all you know is fundie ideas because that's all atheists deal with,

When you just assume the Bible is literally true, that is being a "fundie".

yea. good point bit I don't do that,Nothing I'm saying here is about being literal. There's a difference in saying Bible is authoritative and taking it literally.


Your argument is that I do not know, and that slight doubt means that you are right. That is nonsense, as anyone with any academic background would realise. If I can show that A is 90% likely to be true, and hence I do not know that it is true, only a "fundie" would conclude that A is therefore wrong.

hu? lost me at the bakery


Joe: There is no such evidence, you are basing it on argument from silence which is not real evidence,

I am basing it on what is written in Luke and Matthew, two genealogies that have Joseph as the father. Hardly a silence!

I will deal with these issues another time, if you don;t get back on topic I will close the section



Also, remember what this thread is all about. You are claiming that the narrative does not change significantly. An absence of the Virgin Birth in Mark is damning to that claim. It proves that the narrative has indeed changed.

The idea of a Virgin Birth is a pagan concept, one that got adopted as Christianity became fully gentile (and likely Jesus' family were dead).

irrelevant, just dealing with theology is not a matter of oral tradition passing on infiltration badly,

Answering Pixie

Fact is, Paul never used "Monogenase", so your claim that "Monogenase" shows that Paul believed Jesus was God's only begotten son is nonsense.

Sorry PX you misunderstood, I never said Paul used it, Pauline circle had the idea as seen in Hebrews, showing that the Pauline church understood Jesus relation to God was unique. That doesn't mean thye had the full blown doctrine of Trinity.I did not imply that,The Gospels use mongenaise

And Hebrews 11:17 is about Abraham's only son!

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c]

Your whole argument is based on trickery and deceit. Surely you must realise by now that I will check your Bible verses and see what they really mean?

Nice to know what you relay think of me you lying limy bastard.I was trying to say that the Pauline circle had the concept, I didn't say they use it of Jesus, U;m startling that it means unique son

you are tricking yourself because you con;t follow a logical discourse.

Might as well clear this up too. stop confusing theology with the recording of historic events. To me the issue of oral tradition deals with passing on information about what panned to Jesus not how one interprets the meaning of Jesus

the idea that we can only accept the early sources like Mark and Paul as authoritative is an atheistism not a real principle of scholarship.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Israel had a queen who sat on the throne and her son succeeded her

Are you thinking of Athaliah, who became ruler AFTER her son, Ahaziah, died? She ruled for six years, during which she tried to establish worship of Baal in Judah. Is the precedent for the messiah you are looking for? If so, then you are abandoning the entire descendant of David requirement, not just the male line part.

She was succeeded her grandson, Jehoash, who WAS a direct male line descendant of David through her husband, so offers no support to your position.

Joe: That is not a case of the community letting in a bad idea because oral tradition is crap it;s an example of one way they interpreted things nothing to do with oral tradition,

Then talk us through it Joe. Explain in detail how the Virgin Birth got added to the narrative, given the oral tradition is so great.

Joe: No The northern kingdom Israel has a queen,

Israel had several kings that were not of the House of David, such as Omri and Ahad. Should we assume that being of the line of David was not a requirement to being the messiah?

Joe: Luke is Mary's genealogy,

Only if you ignore what the text actually says:

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

It does not mention Mary at all. Why would it? Women were irrelevant to a geneology, all that was important was the male line.

Joe: irrelevant, just dealing with theology is not a matter of oral tradition passing on infiltration badly,

The changing theology explains why the narrative changed. There is a narrative about how the narrative changed (a meta-narrative if you like). The narrative developed as Christianity developed, and as Christianity became more gentile, so did the narrative. We can see that in the increased hostility to the Jews as well as the adoption of pagan ideas like the Virgin Birth. Similarly, as the Christology of the theology became higher, so the narrative changed, with Jesus moving away from the adopted son to being born the son in Matthew and Luke, and then pre-existing in John.

You cannot look at the development of the narrative without also looking at the context of that development if you want to understand it. The changing theology is vital to understanding how the narrative changed.

Joe: Sorry PX you misunderstood, I never said Paul used it, Pauline circle had the idea as seen in Hebrews, showing that the Pauline church understood Jesus relation to God was unique. That doesn't mean thye had the full blown doctrine of Trinity.I did not imply that,The Gospels use mongenaise

You were responding to a point about what Paul and Mark believed. If I got hold of the wrong end of the stick, it is because you handed it to me that way around.

The Hebrews epistle uses "only son" to refer to Abraham's son, so is no help to you. As far as I know the only gospel to use the concept with regards to Jesus is John (writing when the theology had progressed to a sufficiently high Christology).

Joe: Nice to know what you relay think of me you lying limy bastard.I was trying to say that the Pauline circle had the concept, I didn't say they use it of Jesus, U;m startling that it means unique son

What? Seriously? Who cares if Paul was familiar with the concept of an only son? I am sure there were plenty of families that had only one son at that time.

That proves absolutely nothing about what Paul believed about Jesus.

This really is desperate! Clutching at straws indeed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
OK Px you are essentially admitting I was right about oral tradition because you can't answer community as author on it's own terms you have to bring in these old atheist Bible contras but they are stupid I will beat them.



Joe: Israel had a queen who sat on the throne and her son succeeded her

Are you thinking of Athaliah, who became ruler AFTER her son, Ahaziah, died? She ruled for six years, during which she tried to establish worship of Baal in Judah. Is the precedent for the messiah you are looking for? If so, then you are abandoning the entire descendant of David requirement, not just the male line part.

how she did on the throne has nothing to do the principle novelized line, you have this delusional idea that Jesus can't be Messiah because he would have to be born form a human father (you have no test case to try it out on).

She was succeeded her grandson, Jehoash, who WAS a direct male line descendant of David through her husband, so offers no support to your position.

No wrong, by that you mean he had a father. Of course he did,most people do,but his father was never king The succession went directly from his grand mother. So he got his royal title from a woman.

Joe: That is not a case of the community letting in a bad idea because oral tradition is crap it;s an example of one way they interpreted things nothing to do with oral tradition,

Then talk us through it Joe. Explain in detail how the Virgin Birth got added to the narrative, given the oral tradition is so great.

Probably because he was the product of v birth and his family knew it,

Joe: No The northern kingdom Israel has a queen,

Israel had several kings that were not of the House of David, such as Omri and Ahad. Should we assume that being of the line of David was not a requirement to being the messiah?


what kind of sense does that make? You did not have to be descended from David to be King, but you had to be to be Messiah,not all kings were messiah,.

Joe: Luke is Mary's genealogy,

Only if you ignore what the text actually says:

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

es we should ignore it,,Edershieme says they used the son-in-law as the heir he is adopted into the line legally (son in law) because she had no brother, it also says Jesus was supposed Jo's son

It does not mention Mary at all. Why would it? Women were irrelevant to a geneology, all that was important was the male line.


It was sexist aversion to using the woman as property holder, they is why they invented the idea of a son in law


Joe: irrelevant, just dealing with theology is not a matter of oral tradition passing on infiltration badly,

[should say information]

The changing theology explains why the narrative changed. There is a narrative about how the narrative changed (a meta-narrative if you like). The narrative developed as Christianity developed, and as Christianity became more gentile, so did the narrative. We can see that in the increased hostility to the Jews as well as the adoption of pagan ideas like the Virgin Birth. Similarly, as the Christology of the theology became higher, so the narrative changed, with Jesus moving away from the adopted son to being born the son in Matthew and Luke, and then pre-existing in John.

convenience does not make truth it's daft argument. Since the discovery of DSS we know John is an extremely Jewish book. Jesus was never adopted. The scene at baptism with the dove landing on him and the voice from heaven is not an adoption but recognition, that fits into your opposition but it has no proof behind it.

You cannot look at the development of the narrative without also looking at the context of that development if you want to understand it. The changing theology is vital to understanding how the narrative changed.

you know nothing about the theology, you are think using a bunch of atheist wrenches are knowledge they are nothing. you are just using made up bs used to frustrate belief rather than real scholarship,

Joe: Sorry PX you misunderstood, I never said Paul used it, Pauline circle had the idea as seen in Hebrews, showing that the Pauline church understood Jesus relation to God was unique. That doesn't mean thye had the full blown doctrine of Trinity.I did not imply that,The Gospels use mongenaise

You were responding to a point about what Paul and Mark believed. If I got hold of the wrong end of the stick, it is because you handed it to me that way around.

Yes I see that,I worded it badly , my wording was misleading but not intentional. I was confusing two ideas at once, That Hebrews use of Mongenase indicates meaning of the word (although not used of Jesus) and that opening lines about Jesus as the ultimate revelation depicts special relationship between Jesus and father. It says "now through his son in the last times" that could be taken as figurative sonship but it clearly establishes Jesus the unique revelation

The Hebrews epistle uses "only son" to refer to Abraham's son, so is no help to you. As far as I know the only gospel to use the concept with regards to Jesus is John (writing when the theology had progressed to a sufficiently high Christology).

John is good enough

Joe: Nice to know what you relay think of me you lying limy bastard.I was trying to say that the Pauline circle had the concept, I didn't say they use it of Jesus, U;m startling that it means unique son

What? Seriously? Who cares if Paul was familiar with the concept of an only son? I am sure there were plenty of families that had only one son at that time.

I anticipated that you or Skep-might try to argue with the meaning of the term,



That proves absolutely nothing about what Paul believed about Jesus.

Pal in his own words establishes the deity of Christ,

This really is desperate! Clutching at straws indeed.

first of all you are totality beaten on community as author idea. to answer that you had to drag in a whole box of red herrings of off old old message boards, I've argued that stuff thousands of times but haven't seen it in seven or eight years,

James was the head of the a Jerusalem church, they start trying to say his mother was a virgin when his brother was born is he going to accept that? If it was true why wouldn't they enter that into the mix of evidence early on?

The Pixie said…
Joe: OK Px you are essentially admitting I was right about oral tradition because you can't answer community as author on it's own terms you have to bring in these old atheist Bible contras but they are stupid I will beat them.

Well you have a great imagination!

The addition of the Virgin Birth, of the Jerusalem appearances of Jesus post-resurrection, the guards on the tomb, Joseph or Arimathea being a Christian, etc. are all example of how the story got embellished. They PROVE that the story changed.

Joe: how she did on the throne has nothing to do the principle novelized line, you have this delusional idea that Jesus can't be Messiah because he would have to be born form a human father (you have no test case to try it out on).

Was Athaliah a precedent for the messiah?

No. The Hebrews would not consider her as such because: (1) she was a woman; (2) she was not a descendant of David; and (3) she was an idolatress. Therefore, you cannot cite her as a precedent for Messiahship. Therefore she is not a challenge to my claim that The Messiah had to be a direct male-line descendant of David.

Pix: She was succeeded her grandson, Jehoash, who WAS a direct male line descendant of David through her husband, so offers no support to your position.

Joe: No wrong, by that you mean he had a father.

No, Joe. By that I mean he was a direct male line descendant of David.

Joe: No wrong, by that you mean he had a father. Of course he did,most people do,but his father was never king The succession went directly from his grand mother. So he got his royal title from a woman.

His father was Ahaziah, King of Judah. Ahaziah's father was Jehoram of Judah, whose father was Jehoshaphat, then Asa, Abijah, Rehoboam, Solomon and so David. Direct male-line descendant of David. Therefore he is not a challenge to my claim that The Messiah had to be a direct male-line descendant of David, and in fact is an exemplar.

Pix: Then talk us through it Joe. Explain in detail how the Virgin Birth got added to the narrative, given the oral tradition is so great.

Joe: Probably because he was the product of v birth and his family knew it,

Is that what you consider "Explain in detail"? Nothing there gives any indication as to why the Virgin Birth is in Matthew and Luke and not in Mark, you do not even name any of the gospels!

If there was a Virgin Birth, then his family knew about it before Jesus even started his ministry. What we would expect is that Paul would mention it, instead of saying:

Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David,

... he would have said:

Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was born of a virgin,

We would expect it to be mentioned in Mark.

We would expect the gospels of Matthew and Luke to omit genealogies tracing Jesus' ancestry via Joseph.

Instead, what we see is what would happen if his family knew he had a normal birth. While his family were alive, there were no stories of a Virgin Birth. Only once they were dead did the stories appear.

Joe: what kind of sense does that make? You did not have to be descended from David to be King, but you had to be to be Messiah,not all kings were messiah,.

So what was the point of your statement "No The northern kingdom Israel has a queen," I kind of imagined it was relevant to the on-going discussion. My bad.
The Pixie said…
Joe: es we should ignore it,,Edershieme says they used the son-in-law as the heir he is adopted into the line legally (son in law) because she had no brother, it also says Jesus was supposed Jo's son

Why suppose Mary had no brother? Oh, because you have to to make your theory work.

Why suppose the rules for a legal heir also apply to messiahship? Oh, because you have to to make your theory work.

What you are missing here is that to be Messiah indicates a special blessing from God, and it makes no sense to suppose he could be descended from a family so displeasing to God that he would not give them a male heir.

Furthermore, consider why they expected a descendant of David... It was because God had made a covenant with David that it would be his seed on the throne. Not his seed via some legal technicality, but a direct, male-line descendant.

See, David's son-in-law is not his seed, Joe.

Joe: convenience does not make truth it's daft argument. Since the discovery of DSS we know John is an extremely Jewish book.

Not sure what you mean.

Joe: Jesus was never adopted. The scene at baptism with the dove landing on him and the voice from heaven is not an adoption but recognition, that fits into your opposition but it has no proof behind it.

Mark clearly believed Jesus was adopted. Paul probably thought Jesus was adopted at the resurrection. Both were Jews awaiting the Messiah, a man who would be adopted by God. They believed Jesus was that man. Of course they believed he was adopted.

Joe: Yes I see that,I worded it badly , my wording was misleading but not intentional. I was confusing two ideas at once, That Hebrews use of Mongenase indicates meaning of the word (although not used of Jesus) and that opening lines about Jesus as the ultimate revelation depicts special relationship between Jesus and father. It says "now through his son in the last times" that could be taken as figurative sonship but it clearly establishes Jesus the unique revelation

Of course Paul believed Jesus had a unique relationship with God - Jesus was the long-waited Messiah, adopted by God as his son!

Joe: I anticipated that you or Skep-might try to argue with the meaning of the term,

Well when your use of the term is that dubious, it is pretty much a certainty someone will call you on it.

Joe: Pal in his own words establishes the deity of Christ,

Where? Are you sure he is not hailing Jesus as the Messiah, the King of Kings?

Joe: James was the head of the a Jerusalem church, they start trying to say his mother was a virgin when his brother was born is he going to accept that? If it was true why wouldn't they enter that into the mix of evidence early on?

Joe, you need to think these things through. According to Josephus, James was executed in 62 AD. That means stories of a Virgin Birth could not start until after that date. Too late for Paul. Too late to get sufficiently established for Mark to take seriously. But time enough for the authors of Matthew and Luke to heard about and take seriously.

Hence, the Virgin Birth is in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark or the Pauline epistles.

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: OK Px you are essentially admitting I was right about oral tradition because you can't answer community as author on it's own terms you have to bring in these old atheist Bible contras but they are stupid I will beat them.

Well you have a great imagination!

you are not dealing with continuity as author

The addition of the Virgin Birth, of the Jerusalem appearances of Jesus post-resurrection, the guards on the tomb, Joseph or Arimathea being a Christian, etc. are all example of how the story got embellished. They PROVE that the story changed.

But the guidelines were laid out firmly enough that it is the one story being embellished not multiple stories. btw gospels never say Jo of A was a Christian and there is no evidence he was not,

Joe: how she did on the throne has nothing to do the principle novelized line, you have this delusional idea that Jesus can't be Messiah because he would have to be born form a human father (you have no test case to try it out on).

Was Athaliah a precedent for the messiah?

No she's a predetermine for Kinship and blood lines, the Messiah is king,He has to sit on the throne of David, but being seed of David does not mean he
has to have a physical father, the seed is from Mary's fatter.


No. The Hebrews would not consider her as such because: (1) she was a woman;

your understanding of seed is bull shit, you made that up you have no backing


(2) she was not a descendant of David;

YES SHE WAS!!!!!! She his from the line in Luke, which is David,
Like 3"31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,"

and (3) she was an idolatress. Therefore, you cannot cite her as a precedent for Messiahship.

No evidence so atheists think its fain to slander people because they are in the bible, Moreover no rule says Messiah;s mother can't be idolatress

Therefore she is not a challenge to my claim that The Messiah had to be a direct male-line descendant of David.

your claim is meaningless what do you mean direct male line? Jesus was deended from male he was mary's father, what's the big deal? you think that means he had to have a biological father who bade that peruke? where is it written>

Pix: She was succeeded her grandson, Jehoash, who WAS a direct male line descendant of David through her husband, so offers no support to your position.

that is illogical look at the analogy,his father wanst on the thronen he got his title ny his grand mother. Jesus father was the creator of the universe,,


Joe: No wrong, by that you mean he had a father.

No, Joe. By that I mean he was a direct male line descendant of David.


so was Jesus consult Luke, what you really mean is he had to have a biological father otherwise you are just saying there are no men in Mary's line,

Joe: No wrong, by that you mean he had a father. Of course he did,most people do,but his father was never king The succession went directly from his grand mother. So he got his royal title from a woman.

His father was Ahaziah, [anciently chopped off that quote]

Ahaziah's father was Jehoram of Judah, whose father was Jehoshaphat, then Asa, Abijah, Rehoboam, Solomon and so David. Direct male-line descendant of David. Therefore he is not a challenge to my claim that The Messiah had to be a direct male-line descendant of David, and in fact is an exemplar.

Jesus GF was direct decedent of a line of males going back to David,so Jesus would just be the next male he would get he membership in the line from his GF.

Pix: Then talk us through it Joe. Explain in detail how the Virgin Birth got added to the narrative, given the oral tradition is so great.

Joe: Probably because he was the product of v birth and his family knew it,

Is that what you consider "Explain in detail"? Nothing there gives any indication as to why the Virgin Birth is in Matthew and Luke and not in Mark, you do not even name any of the gospels!''

Mark doesn't deal with any birth Narrative.O have a theory but you wont like it.Most evangelicals wont like it.

Mark was close to Peter so he wanted to ke emphasis off the family. Peter should be leader not James. Mary had v birth that would make all her kids spacial.


If there was a Virgin Birth, then his family knew about it before Jesus even started his ministry. What we would expect is that Paul would mention it, instead of saying:

Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David,

... he would have said:

Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was born of a virgin,

We would expect it to be mentioned in Mark.


We would expect the gospels of Matthew and Luke to omit genealogies tracing Jesus' ancestry via Joseph.

Instead, what we see is what would happen if his family knew he had a normal birth. While his family were alive, there were no stories of a Virgin Birth. Only once they were dead did the stories appear.

false assumption.Peter had tensions with Paul remember? the birth narrate adds to James' claim to leadership. Mary was Pete's side kick so he takes the emphasis off the family.Matthew and Luke were probably pro James. matt community had pharisees and rabbinical types. that would go well with James. Iterate fisherman is not going to appeal to phrases and rabbis like learned James who was super legalistic. Of course Luke is said to have affinities with mary but he waslso Paul side kick




Joe: what kind of sense does that make? You did not have to be descended from David to be King, but you had to be to be Messiah,not all kings were messiah,.

So what was the point of your statement "No The northern kingdom Israel has a queen," I kind of imagined it was relevant to the on-going discussion. My bad.

I already told you that,it proves authority does not have to come directly fro, a man in temporal order,the grandson was king after the grandmother, No reason Jesus could not derive his authority as male from grandfahter, especially in the eyes of people who saw Joseph as his father,

11/14/2018 05:51:00 AM
Joe: es we should ignore it,,Edershieme says they used the son-in-law as the heir he is adopted into the line legally (son in law) because she had no brother, it also says Jesus was supposed Jo's son

Why suppose Mary had no brother? Oh, because you have to to make your theory work.

that;s traditional there are two apocryphal texts that say so and the vibraphone of James and the protevangeline, Edershieme arues it,but hey you have no basis for anything you have said

Why suppose the rules for a legal heir also apply to messiahship? Oh, because you have to to make your theory work.

No that's your reason. Messiah is king, same rules of King making and inheritance aptly because we are essentially dealing with that, The big Messiah is the seed to David and Solomon God promised each his seed would rule on an everlasting throne,

What you are missing here is that to be Messiah indicates a special blessing from God, and it makes no sense to suppose he could be descended from a family so displeasing to God that he would not give them a male heir.

God never established primo generator as a valid idea, that is just a cultural assumption.You also just contradicted your argument about male seed

Furthermore, consider why they expected a descendant of David... It was because God had made a covenant with David that it would be his seed on the throne. Not his seed via some legal technicality, but a direct, male-line descendant.

Jesus had his seed, Mary was dependence from David,

See, David's son-in-law is not his seed, Joe.

Yes he is, grafted in jut like Paul says,more importantly I said the the son in law bit about why they listed Jo instead of Mary in the geology,I did not say the son in law could be Messiah,

Joe: convenience does not make truth it's daft argument. Since the discovery of DSS we know John is an extremely Jewish book.

Not sure what you mean.

Joe: Jesus was never adopted. The scene at baptism with the dove landing on him and the voice from heaven is not an adoption but recognition, that fits into your opposition but it has no proof behind it.

Prove it, there is no evidence of that,he does not say I am adopting you it says this is my son,

Mark clearly believed Jesus was adopted.


you made it up you have no reason at all anywhere

Paul probably thought Jesus was adopted at the resurrection. Both were Jews awaiting the Messiah, a man who would be adopted by God. They believed Jesus was that man. Of course they believed he was adopted.

Paul's statement in Philippians about equality with God shows he clearly believed Jesus was incarnate logos,
The Pixie said…
Joe: But the guidelines were laid out firmly enough that it is the one story being embellished not multiple stories.

And that one story was Jesus tried before the Romans, crucified and buried, then seen in some form in Galilee. No Jerusalem appearances, no empty tomb, no bodily resurrection.

Joe: btw gospels never say Jo of A was a Christian and there is no evidence he was not,

Yes, John specifically states Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian.

John 19:38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away.

Elsewhere he is said to be of the Sanhedrin, and that all the Sanhedrin voted to condemn Jesus, so we can be pretty sure that at that point the idea that he was a Christian had still to be invented.

Joe: No she's a predetermine for Kinship and blood lines, the Messiah is king,He has to sit on the throne of David, but being seed of David does not mean he
has to have a physical father, the seed is from Mary's fatter.


Great. So why did you bring her up?

Pix: Was Athaliah a precedent for the messiah?
No. The Hebrews would not consider her as such because: (1) she was a woman; (2) she was not a descendant of David;


Joe: YES SHE WAS!!!!!! She his from the line in Luke, which is David,

Pretty sure Luke does not mention Athaliah.

Joe: No evidence so atheists think its fain to slander people because they are in the bible, Moreover no rule says Messiah;s mother can't be idolatress

She ruined the land, 2 Chronicles 22:12, and after she was killed a temple of Baal was destroyed, 2 Chronicles 23:16-17, which makes me think she was an idolatress. How do you understand those verses?

Joe: your claim is meaningless what do you mean direct male line? Jesus was deended from male he was mary's father, what's the big deal? you think that means he had to have a biological father who bade that peruke? where is it written>

I mean passed down via sons, not by daughters. As the two genealogies of Jesus state. As per Hebrew tradition and the covenant God made with David.

Joe: that is illogical look at the analogy,his father wanst on the thronen he got his title ny his grand mother. Jesus father was the creator of the universe,,

Jehoash became king because he was a direct male line descendant of David, being Athaliah's grandson, as Athaliah had herself been married to a direct male line descendant of David.

Joe: so was Jesus consult Luke, what you really mean is he had to have a biological father otherwise you are just saying there are no men in Mary's line,

Yes, Jesus had to have a biological father to fulfill the requirement to be Messiah, he had to be a direct male line descendant of David. And that is exactly what Luke presents to us.

Joe: Jesus GF was direct decedent of a line of males going back to David,so Jesus would just be the next male he would get he membership in the line from his GF.

Right. And so was his grandfather's son, Joseph, and Joseph's son Jesus. Just as it says in Luke.

And Matthew.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Mark doesn't deal with any birth Narrative.O have a theory but you wont like it.Most evangelicals wont like it.
Mark was close to Peter so he wanted to ke emphasis off the family. Peter should be leader not James. Mary had v birth that would make all her kids spacial.


I like that is an attempt to give details that actually explain.

However, according to Josephus, James died in 62 AD, so no threat to Peter's leadership in ca. 70 AD when Mark was written. Also, this destroys your "Community as Author" claim, as you are now saying the narrative is subject to political expediency.

Do you think the Virgin Birth was in the pre-Markan Passion Narrative?

Joe: false assumption.Peter had tensions with Paul remember? the birth narrate adds to James' claim to leadership. Mary was Pete's side kick so he takes the emphasis off the family.Matthew and Luke were probably pro James. matt community had pharisees and rabbinical types. that would go well with James. Iterate fisherman is not going to appeal to phrases and rabbis like learned James who was super legalistic. Of course Luke is said to have affinities with mary but he waslso Paul side kick

I am not following who is on what side. I guess you mean Mark as Peter's sidekick? I would have put Paul in James' camp, with Luke, his sidekick, given his own background as a Pharisee. That would mean he had the incentive to emphasise the Virgin Birth - if he had heard of it.

Joe: I already told you that,it proves authority does not have to come directly fro, a man in temporal order,the grandson was king after the grandmother, No reason Jesus could not derive his authority as male from grandfahter, especially in the eyes of people who saw Joseph as his father,

Sure. In the Northern Kingdom, any upstart could claim to be chosen by God and claim the throne (such as Jehu). But we are talking more specifically about Messiahship. The Kingdom of Israel was long gone before anyone was talking about a Great Messiah. The prophecies were based on God's promise that David's seed would rule, a continuation of Judah. That meant a direct male line descendant, as both Luke and Matthew claim, and was the case for every king of Judah.

Joe: No that's your reason. Messiah is king, same rules of King making and inheritance aptly because we are essentially dealing with that, The big Messiah is the seed to David and Solomon God promised each his seed would rule on an everlasting throne,

The little messiahs were kings, the Great Messiah was the king and more besides.

This was the fulfillment of prophecy, of God's covenant with David. God had promised David's seed would rule, so the Great Messiah had to be of that seed. That was clearly not the case for being king of Israel, for example, so we know the rules of Messiahship were different to the rules of kingship (more constrained).

Joe: God never established primo generator as a valid idea, that is just a cultural assumption.

Not sure what you mean, but I guess this is about a family with a son being blessed. I appreciate that is not established by God, but it is very clear that boys were more highly regarded than girls, it is very clear that having a boy is especially important for a king.

I think that they attributed to God all that happened to them. If there was a drought, then it was God punishing them or testing them. If it rained, God was rewarding them. If they had a male baby, God was blessing them. Do you disagree?

Joe: You also just contradicted your argument about male seed

How?

Joe: Jesus had his seed, Mary was dependence from David,

Mary was a woman, and so had no seed, and so could not pass on David's seed.

Joe: Yes he is, grafted in jut like Paul says,more importantly I said the the son in law bit about why they listed Jo instead of Mary in the geology,I did not say the son in law could be Messiah,

When does Paul say Jesus was "grafted in"?
The Pixie said…
Mark and Adoptionism

Joe: Prove it, there is no evidence of that,he does not say I am adopting you it says this is my son,

The text is not clear, I agree. Quite possibly because Christian scribes later made the effort to remove the adoptionist heresy from the text.

Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Compare to this, which is about God adopting David as his son:

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the [e]decree of the Lord:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

This is even clearer in Matthew:

Matthew 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Note that Mark says that this was the beginning of the Good News. Not the birth of Jesus, but his adoption by God.

Why would God incarnate need to be baptised anyway? Matthew gives an explanation. Mark does not. Mark sees no probloem with Jesus being baptised because Jesus was just a man up to that point. It makes sense to baptist Jesus in Mark's narrative, because he was not yet the Messiah, so no explanation required.

I have already pointed out that Jesus' family thought him made. That makes sense if he changed at the baptism. It does not make sense if his birth was of a virgin, with angels flying around.

And most importantly, this is what the Jews were expecting. They were looking for The Great Messiah. All the other kingly messiahs had been adopted by God, so it only made sense that the great Messiah would be too.


Paul and Adoptionism

Joe: Paul's statement in Philippians about equality with God shows he clearly believed Jesus was incarnate logos,

Paul was a Pharisee, he had the beliefs of a Pharisee. His conversion on the Road to Damascus was a to flip from expecting the Messiah, to believing the Messiah was already here. I see nothing in his writing to suggest he abandoned his earlier beliefs at all.

He was previously expecting a Messiah who would be adopted as the son of God. After seeing Jesus, he thought he had seen the Messiah who had been adopted as the son of God. In this verse the same reference to Psalm 2:7, when David was adopted,

Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise [h]to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’ 34 As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and [i]sure blessings of David.’

These two verses have God declaring Jesus as Messiah and appointed him. Not born Messiah.

Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge [u]the world in righteousness [v]through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men [w]by raising Him from the dead.”

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a [b]descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Paul was very clear that Jesus was the "first fruits", and what had happened to Jesus would son happen to all the righteous. Including adoption!

Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

Galatians 4:5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
Matthew 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Note that Mark says that this was the beginning of the Good News. Not the birth of Jesus, but his adoption by God.

have yo ever tried to argue with a right to life person about abortion? they will not call it fetus.It's a baby regardless, the day of conception it's a baby. that's you talking about adoption, "let me prove that this adoption is adoption?


Paul and Adoptionism

Joe: Paul's statement in Philippians about equality with God shows he clearly believed Jesus was incarnate logos,

Paul was a Pharisee, he had the beliefs of a Pharisee. His conversion on the Road to Damascus was a to flip from expecting the Messiah, to believing the Messiah was already here. I see nothing in his writing to suggest he abandoned his earlier beliefs at all.

You have been brain washed by atheists sights to thin bk they regarded Messaih as just an ordinary guy, but they did not. The Talmud says he existed before the world that he sits on God's throne, that he was divine.

I will get back to this after breakfast don;t put any more on until I Finnish,
answering admonition in Paul



PxActs 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise [h]to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’ 34 As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and [i]sure blessings of David.’

These two verses have God declaring Jesus as Messiah and appointed him. Not born Messiah.

Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge [u]the world in righteousness [v]through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men [w]by raising Him from the dead.”

the allusion to the psalm necessitates talk of adoption the connection is not to adoration to David. Now here;s the cleaver bit.there may be a relation to adoption but not to his adoption as son of God but to his admonition to the royal line

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a [b]descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Declared does not mean made to be. That does not say was not messiah and son and was made so at resurrection. Declare doesn't mean he wasn;t and now he is it means now we are making it known, means it is noised about to be the case, It's broadcast. announced



Paul was very clear that Jesus was the "first fruits", and what had happened to Jesus would son happen to all the righteous. Including adoption!

first fruits from the dead not sonship its the firsts in the end times Resurrection of the dead

Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

for the resurrection the new heaven and new earth

Galatians 4:5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.


we are adopted as sons he is the only begotten this passage does not say otherwise

Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

what I just said
Blogger The Pixie said...
Mark and Adoptionism

Joe: Prove it, there is no evidence of that,he does not say I am adopting you it says this is my son,

The text is not clear, I agree. Quite possibly because Christian scribes later made the effort to remove the adoptionist heresy from the text.

It does sort of gum up the works for the deity of Christ

Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Compare to this, which is about God adopting David as his son:

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the [e]decree of the Lord:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

This is even clearer in Matthew:

Matthew 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

The connection is to David and maybe with hint of the idea that Jesus is adopted into Solomon's line but does not connect his Messiah-hood to adoption.

Note that Mark says that this was the beginning of the Good News. Not the birth of Jesus, but his adoption by God.

Nowhere does he say that, begin of good news means the beginning of the Gospel being reached the begining of the mission not of his relationship to God

Why would God incarnate need to be baptised anyway? Matthew gives an explanation. Mark does not. Mark sees no probloem with Jesus being baptised because Jesus was just a man up to that point. It makes sense to baptist Jesus in Mark's narrative, because he was not yet the Messiah, so no explanation required.

Mark does not say that,nowhere does he say it,the answer is clear, you are saying really basic mistakes asking why would he need to be baptized is analogous to a creationist saying if we evolved from apes why are there still monkeys? The reason actually given is "to fulfill all righteousness," In other words,Jesus was not God in a man suit he really became a man,so he has to go thorium the same seeking and submitting to God a man must go through, It's an example to us

I have already pointed out that Jesus' family thought him made. That makes sense if he changed at the baptism. It does not make sense if his birth was of a virgin, with angels flying around.

That may be Marcan factionioasm the Brothers where not there when the angel appeared to angel appeared to Mary. It may be they expected him to be raising an army,It doesn't say what they thought he should really be doing

And most importantly, this is what the Jews were expecting. They were looking for The Great Messiah. All the other kingly messiahs had been adopted by God, so it only made sense that the great Messiah would be too.

No again the Talmudist said Messiah was SN premundane,they would have thought he would come with an army of angels to slighter the Romans, that;s probably what the family wanted
Joe: But the guidelines were laid out firmly enough that it is the one story being embellished not multiple stories.

And that one story was Jesus tried before the Romans, crucified and buried, then seen in some form in Galilee. No Jerusalem appearances, no empty tomb, no bodily resurrection.

contradiction if he is seen in Galilee then he is bodily risen,

Joe: btw gospels never say Jo of A was a Christian and there is no evidence he was not,

Yes, John specifically states Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian.

he could have been one there;s no proof against it,it was speculation by Ray Brown


John 19:38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away.

Elsewhere he is said to be of the Sanhedrin, and that all the Sanhedrin voted to condemn Jesus, so we can be pretty sure that at that point the idea that he was a Christian had still to be invented.

minor bullshit, argued like a true fundie, mistakes dont invalidate the gospel

Joe: No she's a predetermine for Kinship and blood lines, the Messiah is king,He has to sit on the throne of David, but being seed of David does not mean he
has to have a physical father, the seed is from Mary's fatter.

Great. So why did you bring her up?

why is it so hard for you to follow an idea? are you to confuse the reader?the argument is Jesus can be Messiah without having a biological father, the proof is the grandson was king even though he was king fv the fact of his millennial ancestor sitting on throne,

Pix: Was Athaliah a precedent for the messiah?

for royal ascendance

No. The Hebrews would not consider her as such because: (1) she was a woman; (2) she was not a descendant of David;

you are really trying to confuse the reader by conciliating Mary with althiah. I am not plugging Athaliah for Messiah,

Joe: YES SHE WAS!!!!!! She his from the line in Luke, which is David,

Pretty sure Luke does not mention Athaliah.


talking about Mary

Joe: No evidence so atheists think its fain to slander people because they are in the bible, Moreover no rule says Messiah;s mother can't be idolatress

She ruined the land, 2 Chronicles 22:12, and after she was killed a temple of Baal was destroyed, 2 Chronicles 23:16-17, which makes me think she was an idolatress. How do you understand those verses?


Has nothing at all to do with ascendance to the throne,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Scientifically Documented Miracles

Extraordinary Claims, Ordinary Fallacies, and Evolution