Hold on there, John the Apostle met Polycarp around 100 A.D.?  And Paul mentions the Virgin Birth in his Epistles? REALLY?

Thx, MNb. I wasn't sure whether to return that paragraph to this section or not. I'm glad you decided to do so on your own.

My response that there was an historical Jesus (of which I am nearly 100% certain, as an historian) but the question of his divinity is a personal one may be unsatisfactory. But it's the only one I feel comfortable giving.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Just to be clear: my background is in modern (19th century) Europe. I taught a couple of introductory courses in Western Civ as a grad student. I am comfortable discussing this and other historical topics, but I'm not an expert by any stretch. I would expect most serious Religion majors to know at least as much as I do about early Christianity. And with today's internet, anyone can check on the facts without any expertise whatsoever.

Wow! 

I taught a college course using Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels as a text.  I respect her work very much.

You studied history at Princeton?  I'm doubly impressed! That is the single best history program in the US!

Regarding Paul's use of "young woman", I don't know for sure, but I thought the Greek of the time differentiated between a maiden and a young married woman. (One can see this clear distinction in the case of Joan of Arc, about 1400 years later. After she was raped by Anglo-French guards she no longer called herself a maiden.)

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/22/11 at 14:31:23:


I took quite a lot of religion classes in college, and in two was actually fortunate enough to be taught by Elaine Pagels, arguably the English-speaking world's leading expert on Christianity in classical antiquity, and the Gnostic texts.  So I'm fairly well versed in Christian history, theology, etc., for a layman.

Anyway I agree with the gist of what you said, Smyslov_Fan.  However, Paul does not mention the virgin birth AT ALL that we know of.  Read in Greek, he deliberately chooses words that should probably be translated as "young woman" when it would have been simple to choose the word "virgin" instead.  And this is not a case of him using a euphemism; he uses the same phrase to describe others that are clearly not virgins.

I think a very strong case can be made that when all "these things" did not "come to pass" before "this generation passed away", early Christians experienced their first deep schism.  A drastic re-evaluation of Christ's teachings, message, etc., was needed to continue in the faith, and this is when what we think of as orthodox Christianity (notice the small 'o') began to develop.  It started to change shape and become it's own religion, and a mythology began to be assembled.

In my opinion, the reason orthodox Christianity "made it" when it was, in fact, a minority opinion among the various Christian sects for almost 300 years, has to do with Constantine.  But these are subjects that entire universtiy classes are devoted to--even entire careers.  I'm fascinated with them and think that anyone with a genuine interest should start by taking a class or two in college if they can.

Good luck...

MNb, 

The website argues that the Gospel story cannot be found in the epistles. 


Well, it's true. There isn't a single narrative of Jesus' life in any of the letters. The letters aren't Gospels, they're letters. The letters do mention key events in Jesus' life (including Christ's virgin birth and his baptism by John the Baptist), some of his sayings, and that he was crucified, died and rose again.  

During the first century, the earliest disciples believed the end of the world was near. They didn't need to write the Gospel story, it was spread orally. This is not at all strange for that period. It wasn't until the second generation of Christians that people thought to write down the Gospel narrative in a single source. (Unless the "Q" document turns up and is dated to ~50CE, as some surmise.)