Originally Posted by spamandham

.....Here Paul suggests that the idea of the death and resurrection is derived from scripture, and that what makes Peter, 'the twelve', 'the 500 brothers', James, and the apostles special is not that they knew a living breathing Jesus, but that the resurrected Jesus appeared to them. Paul makes no distinction between how Jesus appeared to all these people and how Jesus appeared to Paul (which we know is as a vision).

Originally Posted by spamandham

I don't know how historicists so easily hand wave this away - the author is plainly telling us that Jesus was only ever known as a spirit and that the idea of the death and resurrection is derived from scripture.

Originally Posted by spamandham

Sure, today such an idea wouldn't fly, but 2000 years ago Judaism was more like all the other state religions of the day than like modern orthodox Judaism. There were many sects of Judaism with diametrically opposed theologies.



Although I don't think the idea is at all far fetched - it is afterall derived from the Jewish scriptures - I really don't see how the link between Christianity and Judaism can be denied, even if no Jew was ever involved in Christianity. If we propose that Christianity was a purely gentile phenomenon, we are left wondering why it's architects felt the need to prove that Jesus had fulfilled Jewish messianic prophecies.



I don't think it's valid to project modern Judaism back onto the ancients.



It isn't an assumption, it's an argument based on an attempt to best fit all the available data. However, the same could be said of historicism. It really is just rooted in an assumption that Jesus is essentially historical.

All these discussions end up coming down to arguments over 1 or 2 teensy bits of evidence, as if they were some kind of trump cards. Sure, it's useful to try to figure out how these bits of evidence best fit the puzzle, but none of them are the solution to the puzzle individually.



I guess I just don't see it at as at all unlikely that Christianity originated at the epicenter of Judaism. That doesn't mean I buy what Paul says on the matter uncritically, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem valid to exclude the most natural place for it to have developed.

According to Paul, everyone who had seen Jesus saw him in the same way Paul did - as a vision. Although I don't accept 1 Cor 15 as genuine, it nonetheless records the thinking of it's author:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Here Paul suggests that the idea of the death and resurrection is derived from scripture, and that what makes Peter, 'the twelve', 'the 500 brothers', James, and the apostles special is not that they knew a living breathing Jesus, but that the resurrected Jesus appeared to them. Paul makes no distinction between how Jesus appeared to all these people and how Jesus appeared to Paul (which we know is as a vision). I don't know how historicists so easily hand wave this away - the author is plainly telling us that Jesus was only ever known as a spirit and that the idea of the death and resurrection is derived from scripture.

Originally Posted by Iskander

The Christian interpretation is that Paul is stating the central doctrine of Christianity as a teacher to students.

The resurrected Christ appeared to the apostles and others physically as a living man and to Paul in his heavenly glory; in spirit.

Originally Posted by Iskander

Does Paul say Jesus had a brother?
Yes

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Not so.


he says the "Lord's brother",
NOT "Jesus' brother".


Kap

Originally Posted by spamandham

Sure, today such an idea wouldn't fly, but 2000 years ago Judaism was more like all the other state religions of the day than like modern orthodox Judaism. There were many sects of Judaism with diametrically opposed theologies.



Although I don't think the idea is at all far fetched - it is afterall derived from the Jewish scriptures - I really don't see how the link between Christianity and Judaism can be denied, even if no Jew was ever involved in Christianity. If we propose that Christianity was a purely gentile phenomenon, we are left wondering why it's architects felt the need to prove that Jesus had fulfilled Jewish messianic prophecies.



I don't think it's valid to project modern Judaism back onto the ancients.



It isn't an assumption, it's an argument based on an attempt to best fit all the available data. However, the same could be said of historicism. It really is just rooted in an assumption that Jesus is essentially historical.

All these discussions end up coming down to arguments over 1 or 2 teensy bits of evidence, as if they were some kind of trump cards. Sure, it's useful to try to figure out how these bits of evidence best fit the puzzle, but none of them are the solution to the puzzle individually.



I guess I just don't see it at as at all unlikely that Christianity originated at the epicenter of Judaism. That doesn't mean I buy what Paul says on the matter uncritically, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem valid to exclude the most natural place for it to have developed.

According to Paul, everyone who had seen Jesus saw him in the same way Paul did - as a vision. Although I don't accept 1 Cor 15 as genuine, it nonetheless records the thinking of it's author:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Here Paul suggests that the idea of the death and resurrection is derived from scripture, and that what makes Peter, 'the twelve', 'the 500 brothers', James, and the apostles special is not that they knew a living breathing Jesus, but that the resurrected Jesus appeared to them. Paul makes no distinction between how Jesus appeared to all these people and how Jesus appeared to Paul (which we know is as a vision). I don't know how historicists so easily hand wave this away - the author is plainly telling us that Jesus was only ever known as a spirit and that the idea of the death and resurrection is derived from scripture.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I agree with that - Paul's Jesus is a spiritual construct. The gospel Jesus is an attempt to give Paul's spiritual Jesus construct a veneer of historicity, a pseudo-history. Jewish spirituality, with its prophetic interests, required a physical, a material element to Paul's spirituality - albeit in this case a pseudo-historical element.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

However, all this is christian theology. And, as theology, it cannot be synonymous with actual, real history. It can only be an appraisal, a finding of meaning, within history.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Undoubtedly, christianity has a very strong Jewish element - but that does not mean that one should confine ones search for the origins of early christianity - especially pre-Paul - to a Jewish context. Marcoin, seemingly, was not interested in a Jewish genealogy for his Jesus storyline. It could be that the Jewish element, however major it was, was only a part, one element, of the origin story of early christianity.