JoeWallack wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:20 am
The problem with Hurtado's supposed point that the Gospels show a trajectory from HJ to MJ (supernatural) is that, as CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) is wont to do, it ignores the Separationism of GMark. GMark is clearly Separationist (right KK?) so it shows that Jesus was (literally) not worth mentioning before he received God's Spirit. Likewise GMark shows that Jesus was not worth mentioning after God's spirit left. So, the original Gospel narrative really only describes MJ. Sounds to me like the original Gospel Jesus was all MJ. Then, all subsequent Gospels, which very much want HJ, use as a base, a Gospel which only has MJ, which is evidence that they had no other source for HJ.
I cannot understand that argument.
First, Jesus is mentioned before he gets the Holy Spirit. That is when he appears among the crowd surrounding John the Baptist and is baptized (according to GMark). Furthermore, he is said to be from a place which is not in heaven. So he had an earthly past, and, as told afterwards, with earthly/human mother and brothers.
Second, I don't see why someone who (allegedly) get the spirit and then would expel it before his death, cannot be historical as well, even if nothing is told about him after his death.
Furthermore, even if nothing is described about Jesus alive in heaven after bodily death, "Mark" has Jesus predicting his resurrection several times and a later reappearance in the clouds as the heavenly "son of man".
to robert j,
Response: There is no clear-cut evidence in Paul’s letters that Paul considered his Jesus Christ as a near contemporary.
The clear-cut evidence is in Gal 1:19.
Hurtado: “Paul ascribes to Jesus a human birth …”
Response: OK
Hurtado: “… a ministry among fellow Jews …”
Response: I’m not sure where that comes from, but not a problem.
Romans 15:8
Hurtado: “… an execution specifically by Roman crucifixion …”
Response: No, Paul does not specify a Roman-style execution.
Paul said Jesus was crucified, on a cross. Romans, in their empire, were the only ones allow to crucify people.
Hurtado: “… named/known siblings …”
Response: I’m not interested in debating this sticky and well-worn issue. “The Lord's brother” in Galatians 1:19 certainly could be a gloss, a marginal note that found its way into the text. But if we assume it original, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the ‘biological brother/or not’ debate. Similar arguments can be made for 1 Corinthians 9:5. I would acknowledge a tie on debate points, but not nearly enough in the context of Paul’s letters to swing this investigator to think these references are to biological brothers.
In view that Jesus is from a woman and is a descendant from male Jews, chance are he had siblings. Furthermore this is also stated in gMark (which has sisters also) and Josephus Ant. 20.20 (only for James).
I do not know what Paul should have said more to indicate blood brothers, if, at that time, Jesus having true brothers was already known by his audience.
Paul certainly did not think he had to prevent doubts from modern time mythicists.
Hurtado: “… other named individuals who were Jesus’ original companions (e.g., Kephas/Peter, John Zebedee).
Response: Paul did not name these individuals as companions of Jesus. And Paul did not identify his single mention of a “John” as “John Zebedee”.
Sure, you can blame Hurtado for that.
Cordially, Bernard