TedM

Actually one could very easily build this minimal Jesus on just Paul's writings and common sense, even if one misinterprets the real meaning as discerned by folks like Doherty:

If Jesus was historical we learn from Paul:
1. Jesus was a man
2. Jesus was crucified
3. Jesus was crucified during passover since Paul refers to Jesus as the paschal lamb

and since from Paul it is not clear at all that Jesus performed miracles or preached about Gentile salvation, those further assumptions would be supported by Paul

If Jesus was historical we can use common sense:
1. The belief in Jesus' resurrection likely was due to some redeeming quality found in Jesus and from having a following of some kind--so he likely was some kind of preacher.
2. It is more likely that Jesus lived recently than not

We don't need the gospels for any of these assumptions do we? except perhaps the kingdom of god part of the preaching..

If you are participating, please follow the prescribed format--give me passages you expect something and a reason why, or provide passages that should count against the HJ I've portrayed.

Toto

You stated your purpose: "1. What references to this minimal historical Jesus should we expect Paul to have made? "

If there was a historical Jesus of any sort, he was either married or not. Marriage was very important in Judaism, and it was expected that Jewish men would be married. Paul wrote a lot about marriage; would he not be expected to mention whether Jesus was married or not?

The status of Jesus as married or not is one of those details that Paul would be expected to mention.

Toto

This is not common sense. This is just importing the standard view of Jesus, based on the gospels.

The belief in Jesus' resurrection might have been based on his being a warrior, or a priest, or the son of a signficant person, or something else.

Yes, you can't appear to get the gospels out of your thinking.

TedM

Ok, I see now why it might be relevant. It may not be. Please provide from the 7 'authentic' epistles the passage(s) in which you expect a mention, and a reason why you would expect such a mention. I assume Paul's readers would probably know the status of Jesus' marriage so am not sure without digging into your examples and thinking about it some what the most reasonable expectation would be from his readers. If you provide it, I'll take it seriously.


Ok, in this case I suppose I am importing the standard view, which seems a reasonable one. The existence of other reasonable views doesn't detract from the value of testing the standard view. If Paul were to mention Jesus being a warrior or priest, then that could be the kind of evidence to refute my original assumptions, and the test would have value. You've helped prove my point.

spin

So far so good.

The first part does not follow from the second. It is simply unjustified tendentiousness. Paul talks of the role fulfilled, that of the paschal lamb. Jesus' sacrifice protects those who believe. You twist Paul's words for your own unsubstantiated conclusion.

But you shouldn't assume your conclusion, should you?

Don't try to dictate. Your starting conditions aren't coherent. You are left with Paul's crucified savior. He had to be a man in Paul's theology otherwise how could he be an apt sacrifice? He had be believed as having been resurrected otherwise Paul's theology was vain. Your minimal Jesus is Paul's theological Jesus. As we have no way to test the latter, we have no way to test the former.

Have fun, TedM.


spin

TedM

You seemed to have missed my statement: "even if one misinterprets the real meaning...".

Of course I can do that as long as I'm willing to be honest in testing it! Do you too not understand how this is meant to work here?




Why do you say there is no way to test the latter or former? Do you not believe Paul should have been expected to say or not say certain things regarding the particular Jesus being tested?

spin

I don't need your unearned condescension. I read the comment and took it for what it was: untinged empty rhetoric.


It's a consequence of assuming one's conclusion. You have no way of testing it.

For Paul, we only have his theological statements. For you, you assume things about Paul.

Paul isn't doing any testing here. I don't think your statement conveys a clear meaning.


spin

aa5874

Not a problem.

I hope you understand that I can respond to your post as I desire.

TedM

You didn't understand it when you read it, and you don't now. Otherwise you wouldn't insult me. I wasn't being condescending intentionally. Clear to me--not clear to you.


Maybe you are too bright for your own good..dunno. Let me try a simple example to bring you down to my level:

If I assume Jesus was a preacher and Paul wrote:

"Jesus, who never was a preacher, died for you and me.",

that would constitute a good test against my assumption would it not?


See above example for the clear meaning. Geez...

Going to sleep. This exchange has been a clear reminder of why I quit posting here 1.5 years ago. People seem to be so dead set on arguing and protecting their own viewpoints that they aren't listening or trying to understand or learn anything new.

spin

OK, TedM, I think you've demonstrated your communicative abilities for what they are. Others can judge.

If I assume Paul is lefthanded or had grey hair, how can I test either assumption? You cannot test things that have no way to be tested.

I didn't say that Paul said anything about Jesus being a preacher. You cannot simply assume what he doesn't talk about as representative of what he believed, or as your minimal historical position.

Either you want to talk about Paul or you don't. It's hard to divine your communications when you are not clear or open.

Unfortunately I did.

You probably got tired of posting here because people weren't acting the way you wanted them to. That probably hasn't changed.


spin