Personally, if you want my real opinion, I think calling oneself a Christian is vain and arrogant, especially when it defines what others may or may not call themselves in relation to such. To presume that you got it more accurate and have some sort of claim to the title is silly IMO.
In short, I have my sincere doubts that anyone is more aligned with Christ than I am. This does not mean I make myself out to be an authority on the subject, only that I think people who cling to the idea are very scared, and judge others very harshly, and do so need to believe that they may secure a place in heaven through some legal loophole.
The “Son of God” stuff IMO is Roman Propaganda designed to keep the Plebes in line, nothing more and has never served any real purpose past supporting whatever empire is currently the most powerful.
I call myself a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ and try to follow Him. I figure that anyone else who is so moved is entitled to call themselves that as well, though my personal taste is that they mean something vaguely akin to what I do by it.
Your second paragraph is very much on target as regards a certain group of people who seem to live their lives mortally afraid that if they don’t do exactly the right things, God won’t love them any more. To me, that’s the precise antithesis of faith, but that’s their problem.
As for your final paragraph, it may not be worth beating dead horses, but I’d strongly encourage you to read an unbiased history of Christian thought; the evolution of orthodox Christology and the movement of Christianity towards widespread public acceptance and legal recognition occurred in parallel but apparently not in consequence one of the other. It surely was not Roman propaganda.
People can do whatever they want, and call themselves whatever they want, AFAIAC. I was speaking about denominations - twenties, fifties, Benjamins - and I don’t believe there’s a denomination defining itself as Christian that holds to that stance.
In actuality, all of the gospels were written by God through men. The fact that any, all, or none of this is supportable by “evidence” has nothing to do with the faith of a Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God.
Given what I know about the development of oral traditions and oral histories, I find 4 to be highly unlikely if not impossible. If I was an agnostic/atheist (which I’m not) 5 would be the theory I’d find the most logical to explain the life of Jesus.
But the Gospels are almost entirely literary creations. With the exception of a core sayings tradition and the universally attested crucifixion, The Gospels have virtually no foundation in oral tradition. A lot of the stuff in Mark, for instance, which was the first Gospel written and which was the narrative template for Matthew, Luke and parts of John, shows chiastic structures that are purely literary constructions and are impossible to derive from oral traditions. Mark and Matthew can also be shown to have created a lot of their narratives from decontextualixed passages in the Old Testament. There are also biographical details of Jesus in the Gospels which have no precedent in Christian literature for at least 40 years after the crucifixion. Mark (c. 70 CE) is the first to speak of an empty tomb. Matthew the first to speak of a virgin birth (C. 80 CE). These details are not found in Paul, Thomas or Q which is exceedingly curious for aspects that should have had some importance to early Christians.
I am not arguing for mythicism. I am still on the HJ side of the debate (by a hair) over the JM side but the argument is not as patently ridiculous as you may suppose. It’s very difficult indeed to nail down solid proof that HJ existed.
Well, that’s DtC’s opinion. The current thought- as explained at length in “the Oxford Companion to the Bible”- is "“maybe, even possibly”. The late date is explained by the fact that St John was said by all to have lived a good long life, and was one of the younger apostles to start. Thus, having him live to 80 doesn’t stretch any known facts. And of course- written at that late date- after the Christian Church has become more than a small odd Jewish sect- you would expect the work to be more “Christian” and less “Jewish”. Paul gets pretty hard on the Jews himself, and at one time he was a hard-core Pharisee.
It shows a hellenistic style because it is thought that John dictated his story to a number of his followers. It is known that John and his followers moved to Ephesus, where the Johannine Church was established. It was there that The GoJ was written. It also is very likely that it was edited- perhaps several times- after John’s death.
DtC’s point about the expulsion being a “fatal blow” is not so clear to the experts- in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, they say “this may be an allusion to the Test Benediction that was introduced by Rabbi Gamaliel II…” (emphasis mine). Even so, if John dies in ca 90, this Test came in ca 85, and thus the barrier is not so strong. The point that John seems to place this within the Life of Jesus (which certainly isn’t true- if indeed it is* that* “Test Benediction” John is talking about, which we aren’t sure of) isn’t considered by the authors of the Oxford Companion to the Bible to be a barrier to John having being the/an author of the Gospel. I don’t know why they don’t consider it a big deal- maybe they aren’t suprised that an 80 yo man could get some dates muddled around a bit. I’m not.
The Oxford Companion to the Bible has this final conclusion “If the witness of the Beloved Disciple (they accept that the beloved Disciple is John) lies behind this Gospel, but others from the Community actually wrote it, the work may be regarded as Apostolic in character, even though it did not in the end come (as some would argue) from the hand of John the Apostle himself”. In other words- few think that John put pen to parchment and wrote the Gospel himself, in person. But it is very likely that his words are contained in it.
As to the OP- you can believe in Jesus- either the Teacher and mortal man- *or *as the Son of God- without accepting the “literal truth” of everything contained within the pages of your standard KJB.
Not an “Empty Tomb” reference, but definitely a “Burial” one by Paul-
I Corinthians 15:
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
RE Virgin birth, a curious Paulian comment-
Galatian 4:
4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law
(I’ll grant that may have been more a rebuttal to proto-Docetism.)
Thomas is purely a saying Gospel- it doesn’t refer to the crucifixion either.
And unless you know of a find which has not yet been made public, Q is still a hypothetical. We have no Q document yet.
A presumed burial in an unknown criminal’s grave is not the same as an empty tomb. The empty tomb story is found nowhere in Christian literature before Mark and it’s not clear that Paul’s meaning of “rose again” was intended to be a physical event. (He’s also wrong that any of his formula is "according to the scriptures but that’s a different thread)
Even you recognize that this is hardly convincing. Paul was just saying that Jesus was a human.
That’s true. Neither does Q.
We know that Matthew and Luke used a common written source besides Mark. No physical document is needed to confirm that. Q is almost universally accepted by Bible scholars these days.
Do you have a better explanation as to the verbatim agreements between Matt and Luke that do not come from Mark? Is it just a coincidence? Did they just happen to independently translate all those sayings and pericopes into Greek exactly the same way by random chance?
- and I don’t believe there’s a denomination defining itself as Christian that holds to that stance.