TedM

I think maybe you are missing the value in this kind of exercise. If Paul's writings are consistent with this kind of founder, then that neither proves or disproves the idea. However, if Paul's writings are not consistent with this kind of founder we can consider that to be evidence against it.

Paul's writings perhaps should contain references to support this kind of Jesus. Or, perhaps they should not.
And, his writings COULD contain references that contradict this kind of Jesus.

If Paul's do not support this kind of Jesus, then haven't we learned something? Might it not help us zero in on what kind of Jesus they do support?

ted

TedM

Because we at least have some basis for thinking that, as opposed to just using our imaginations. The gospels could well contain bits of history and it is reasonable to assume this.

Yes, but that is not what I've done. I've picked a guy in Jerusalem that is similar to the Jesus of the gospels in some respects--and just the respects that can reasonably explain why Christianity arose. And now I want to put that guy to the "Paul" test.


Regarding your suggestion to "perhaps mention his father (Jesus son of xxx) to distinguish him from all the other men named Jesus? "Jesus, son of..." ",

I see no reason for Paul to have explained which person he was writing about for the simple reason that Paul's audience would have known exactly who Paul was writing about since they were the existing Christians of the time, and other than the Romans, were the Christians he had preached to about Jesus originally. There was no need to distinguish him from all other men named Jesus--he did that when he first preached to them.

Toto

I don't think it is reasonable to assume this without evidence. Where does that leave us?

TedM

Well, I'm sorry to say it leaves me thinking you are an idiot and you probably thinking the same about me

Nevertheless, so what? Why NOT put different Jesus' to the test against Paul's writings? We might just find that that his writings more reasonably support one over the other, and maybe can most reasonably be used to dismiss one type of Jesus--perhaps even the most commonly believed one--entirely!

TedM

Hi Don! I may not stay long.. I'll address your response after Toto and I are done discussing whether or not there may be some value to this 'exercise'.

Toto

No - I think you are an apologist making an unwarranted assumption to provide a pseudo-historical justification for your beliefs. I also think you are too inflexible to realize any other options for looking at the data.

Perhaps someone else would like to participate. I don't see much payoff for the time spent.

TedM

I don't really get this kind of comment and your prior objections. What kind of historical Jesus would you like to put to the test with Paul's writings? I think mine is quite a reasonable one based on the idea that Christianity in some form pre-existed Pauls' conversion, was based on something having to do with a Jesus, and that Paul's own writings refer to Jesus' crucifixion, and refers to him as a paschal (ie passover)lamb. What kind of historical Jesus do YOU think Paul more reasonably would have been inspired by for his gospel and risked his life for-- this kind?:

or,


Is not mine a more reasonable proposition? In any case, what does it matter if the goal is to simply put it to the test? Why are you objecting to testing something out? Who cares if I have a pre-conceived belief? Maybe the test will change that belief. Why have a forum at all if it is not the combination of beliefs and challenges to those beliefs? If we all believed or disbelieved the same thing what fun would that be?

I think you must be either getting tired of the same old issues or motivated a lot by some past frustrations with me because this 'exercise' seems to me to be a very reasonable one and worth pursuing.

Toto

I didn't get your "idiot" comment either.

I don't assume that there was a historical Jesus. I don't assume that the Christianity that existed before Paul was based on a historical Jesus (that group was not referred to as Christianity IIRC - it was the "Way.") I don't see any clear evidence from Paul's letters that he thought he was risking his life for a historical person.

I think there is some confusion - when you said "minimal" Jesus, I assumed you really meant "minimal." But your historical Jesus is very close to the gospel Jesus, minus the supernatural bits.

If you think the test is worth while, please go ahead. There are other people here who might well participate, like GDon.

But really - what do you think you will find? Generations of scholars have combed through Paul's letters looking for a historical Jesus, and have come up with virtually nothing, except for some unconvincing excuses for why Paul didn't mention much about Jesus.

If you want to start, please explain why Paul does not mention whether Jesus was married or not. Paul says that it is best if his followers do not get married. Was Jesus married?

spin

It's interesting that TedM says not to quote to him from the gospels, yet builds his minimal historical Jesus on the gospels.

1. Does Paul ever indicate that Jesus was a preacher?

2. Does Paul say that his savior was crucified during the passover? (He says in 1 Cor 5:7 that our passover was the sacrifice of christ, but that doesn't refer to a time.)

3. Does Paul say Jesus was arrested? (The last supper interpolation in 1 Cor 11:23-27 says he was betrayed.)


spin

TedM

Perhaps an apology is due. I don't really think you are an idiot..Your comment just seemed to be looking for an argument..maybe I misunderstood the intent.

We are having a real problem communicating. The assumption of a historical Jesus with certain characteristics is for the purpose of testing the validity of the assumption. It isn't a statement of fact or belief. I didn't say that Christianity was based on a historical Jesus before Paul. Just that it was based on some kind of a Jesus (could be Doherty's kind). I didn't say Paul thought he was risking his like for a historical person--rather for his beliefs regarding this Jesus, historical or not.

The supernatural bits are a HUGE part of the gospel Jesus. And, minus a whole lot more than those. I don't say what he preached about other than the 'kingdom of God'. I don't say he had 12 disciples, he planned his own death, his tomb was empty, etc...My minimal Jesus not very close to the gospel Jesus.


Dunno. Maybe nothing new. But maybe something new for me or for someone else who participates.

As far as I can tell this question is totally irrelevant to the purpose of the thread as stated in the OP.