Amaleq13

What I mean is that you have failed to give any credence to the notion of any such "indication". As far as I can tell, it only exists in your mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "mystical jesus" but you seem to be mistakenly attributing a mythicist position to me here. How you could do after reading my posts is somewhat of a mystery.

Paul preaches Christ crucified and resurrected. About the life Christ lived subsequent to his incarnation and prior to his execution, Paul is essentially silent. It is, as I've already said, as though that life was either irrelevant to Paul's gospel or unknown to him.

You apparently prefer to believe that he knew it and taught it and considered it important but any mention of that fact has simply not survived in any of the extant letters. That is, as I've also said before, plausible but that isn't the same as "substantiated by evidence" or even "likely".

Where in Paul do you find him even suggest, let alone explicitly state, that the salvational effect of Christ's death required him to have lead a "unique life"?

Paul tells us why Christ was significant and it wasn't because he lead a "unique life" while incarnated:

He was in the form of and equal to God!!!!

An entity like that willingly sets aside whatever qualifies one for such a description and allows himself to be executed in a horribly painful way and you need something else to explain why Paul thought his death might be magically significant?

This would be a great place to offer specific verses that you believe support your claim. Where does Paul talk about Jesus being special when it isn't in the context of his death/resurrection but his daily life?

It implies uniqueness but being the incarnation of an entity that was in the form of and equal to God seems more than ample qualification. Absent any fairly specific and explicit indication from Paul (and I assume you would have offered one already if you had it), there appears to be no good reason to assume that Jesus' life was also unique.

I agree and that is why there is no need to assume, with you, that the incarnated Christ did anything else with his life beyond give it up freely.

On the contrary, that is precisely the sort of evidence you need to lend credibility to your prefer possibility. In what specific verse(s) do you find Paul being "clear" about how Jesus' divinity was expressed in the course of his life?

I fully agree that this passage is describing the resurrection as an historical event but I don't see where it does anything to support your notion that Paul believed Jesus lived a unique life.

He said he emptied himself and the lexicons such as Thayer's explain this as Christ having "laid aside equality with or the form of God". It is clearly to be understood as being in complete contrast to his former equality with God.

Yes, he doesn't need to have done anything else except allow himself to be killed for Paul to preach his gospel.

gurugeorge

As I said, I can see that that makes sense from a Christian point of view, in a way, but from my point of view you aren't looking at Paul first (as befits his priority in time of all the written stuff we have), you're looking at Paul through synoptic reading glasses. There's no mention of "life" (birth, ministry, etc.) such that what he presents as a gospel would make sense as a narrative comparable to the synoptic narrative. You're just sliding from one definition to the other without any real justification (at least without any justification from a not-already-committed-Christian point of view).

Gamera

Paul's references to his gospel refer in shorthand to various elements, like the fact that he was crucified, that he loved us, that he was righteous. Now, that strongly suggests a narrative about leading up to the crucifixion. Needless to say, a narrative that starts at a crucifixion would be incoherent. But it wasn't incoherent to Paul's audience, who accepted his gospel acccording to him. So his reference to Jesus' manner of death strongly suggest that he gave the biographical elements leading to that death.

This claims that Paul preached something like this. "Jesus was crucified. Next this happened . . ." That's pure nonsense. Your position is implausible. If Paul preached Jesus's death by execution, we can be pretty sure he preached his biographical elements that led to his execution. That's plausible. Your position isn't.

I prefer the plausible over the implausible. Your claim that Paul started his gospel with "This guy called Jesus was nailed on a cross. . ." is ludicrous.

Because a lot of people die and Paul claims only one provides salvation to humanity. So that person must have had a very unique background and status. Status and background = biography.

And that Sir, equals biography. If Jesus was in the form and equal to God, that means Paul provide the narrative of Jesus with that status, even if it was only something like, Jesus came from heaven or was born of God or whatever. The point is the statement implies a biography, indeed a HUGE biography to make it coherent.

And that sir, is biography. You're making my point, not yours.

Already did that.

To be unique means to have a unique biography. If Paul asserts Jesus was God or in the form of God or like God, that implies a huge biography to embody that remarkable claim.

But how did he get there as the incarnated Christ? What was different about his birth from Joe's down the street? Even if Paul insist that his life was banal, that too is a biography!


2 Corinthians 8:9 - For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.

So, Jesus's life didn't involve becoming rich and powerful. He remained poor so others could be rich. Presumably, he could have gotten himself appointed procurator of Judea, but he didn't. That's biography, that's a course of life.


Ephesians 5:2 - And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

So, Paul knows that Jesus "love" us (past tense), meaning before his death, which means he discerns something in his biography that showed his love (perhaps the many incidents of mercy and kindness now memorialized in the gospels?)

2 Timothy 2:8 - Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel,

So, Jesus had a geneology, i.e., a biography.

1 Corinthians 2:2 - For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

What does it mean to "know Jesus" but to know his biography?


See above.

So if Jesus had become emperor, Paul would have still thought he had emptied himself. Unlikely.

Romans 5: 17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19

So Jesus engages in at least one act of righteousness (One suspects there were more). This is biography.

Well, see above. He not only allowed himself to be killed, but he took on an impoverished form of life, avoiding accumulating riches and power, acted righteously and he "loved us", presumably in a manner that was discernable during his life, since Paul discerns his love manifesting before his death.

The idea that Paul could refer to all this, but really only told a narrative starting with Jesus's execution as a criminal is implausible.

Gamera

It would be if the references that Paul makes in his epistles about his gospel didn't accord with the synoptiics. But they do. If Paul indicated Jesus died of starvation or a cart accident, you'd have a point. But they don't. Instead, what we know of Paul's gospel accords with the synoptics. That's evidence that his gospel probably accorded with the synoptics.

(even more so since the synoptics probably relied heavily on Paul's writings and teachings in the first place, having come later)

Yes, like how do you explain the fact that what Paul does say about his gospel accords with the synoptics? The most plausible explanation is because they strories are basically the same.

But if you have another more plausible explanation, let us know.

Amaleq13

Paul knows Christ loved us and was righteous because he gave himself as a willing sacrifice. There is no need to speculate about anything "leading up" to the crucifixion being the inspiration for these beliefs Paul held about Jesus.

It is needless to say because it doesn't related to anything I've written about the start of Paul's gospel.

You are clearly making claims that extend beyond the available evidence and which seem to be primarily based on your personal incredulity.

Needless to say, that is not a basis I find particularly compelling.

You skipped the very important beginning I've already described so you haven't done a very good job summarizing my claim. This actually relates to what I've written:

"Christ was in the form of and equal to God before choosing to set that aside to take on the form of a servant. Next, without recognizing who he was the evil rulers of this world crucified him. Three days fter being buried, he rose from the dead and appeared to many."

Your refusal to deal with what I've actually written is rather annoying but not surprising given that you apparently have nothing to support your position but personal incredulity and speculative imaginings.

This does not even approach answering my question. I've already agreed that Paul considered Christ to have had a very unique background and status. This is made quite clear when he states that Christ originally had the form of and was equal to God. That's pretty unique and provides a substantial quantity of status so no other source needs to be imagined.

What I don't find and you have yet to provide, is anything to support your contention that the life Christ lead while in the form of a servant was somehow unique.

You appear to have me confused with a mythicist. What it doesn't equal is a unique life being lead while in the form of a servant.

OK, how does that serve as support for your contention about his life in the form of a servant being unique?

I'm not making your point with regard to our discussion since it hasn't been about denying the presence of biographical information in Paul. It would be ever so helpful if you would actually respond to what I've written in my posts. I agreed with you in that regard in my very first response to you.

I don't think so. Which post or what verses?

I agree. Have you figured out yet that you are attributing a position to me that I do not hold?

More relevantly, are you now acknowledging that it is consistent with what Paul writes to conclude that Jesus may have lead a banal life as a servant?

He was "rich" when he was in the form of and equal to God and became "poor" when he emptied himself to take on the lowly form of a servant. That doesn't make the life he lead while in that lowly form unique.

Paul knows Christ loved us because Christ gave himself up for us. This is entirely about his death and provides nothing to support your claim about a unique life.

Since his death was in the past, you have no basis to extend beyond that point to find the evidence upon which Paul based his conclusion.

To claim that Jesus was descended from David is to claim he had a unique life? Nonsense. It would be just swell if you would address my actual position rather than the one you appear to want me to hold.

Beats me but it doesn't seem at all supportive of your notion about living a unique life.

I agree that Paul would not have considered Emperor Jesus to match up very well with the description in Philippians 2. Why do you think this counters anything I've written?

No question about it. I would even go so far as to say that emptying himself of whatever made him equal to God and willingly allowing himself to be sacrificed qualify as two. How this supports your position over mine, however, is a mystery.

It is precisely that presumption you have failed to support with anything beyond your personal incredulity. Willingly submitting himself for sacrifice is what Christ did before his death which Paul understands to indicate Christ's love. It seems ridiculous to suggest that more would be needed to establish that conclusion for Paul and even more ridiculous to suggest he wouldn't mention it.

This has nothing to do with anything I've written. Get back to me when you are willing to deal with what I've actually written instead of what you wish I had written. I'm tired of wasting my time responding to somebody else's position.

Amaleq13

You already explained it quite well in the very same post:

spamandham

This may indicate nothing more than that the synoptics started with what Paul wrote (and probably much more than just that). Even according to apologetic Christian dating, Paul wrote decades before the synoptics.

It's also evidence that the Gospel writers invented details where there was previously just a vague 'christ crucified on a cross' concept. It's anachronistic to project the Gospel crucifixion details back to Paul. All we know about what Paul taught, is what we can gleen from his letters.

No, the simplest explanation is that the details were unknown (at least by Paul) when Paul wrote, which is why he didn't share them with us.

Paul exlicitly states that he got his information directly from revelation and not from men. He also admits that he is not a witness. If we are inclined to believe Paul is telling at least a half truth here, then I would not expect a narrative akin to the Gospels to unfold from a heavenly vision. Would you?

(I'm starting to conclude that 1 Corinthians 15 is not genuine for this reason. It reads like a creed from a much later period attached to Paul's letter to give it more weight. )

The most plausible explanation for how the gospel stories formed, if you do not start by assuming they are true, is that they are later works at syncretizing disparate ideas that existed at the time the gospel writers wrote. They couldn't wholesale invent new stories if people were already familiar with certain ideas, but they could mesh them together and invent new details to try to harmonize those stories. This would explain why so many of the gospel stories read as if they are a mishmash of ideas, and it would also explain the heavy influence of Jewish scriptures in the stories and in what Jesus says. For example, if Jesus was alone praying in the garden of Gethsemene, right before being arrested, who was there to record his prayers? Did he tell the Roman guards "oh just give me a second to tell someone what I said in private prayer so they can write it down later"?

This is why the gospels don't even agree with eachother. The authors were syncretizing prior works and adding their own creative ideas along the way. It's no different from what Christians today are doing. The work of Tim Lehay has become a wildly popular new concept, that most Christians now accept as fact. Why should we think the process of fusing old ideas together with new details to invent new theologies is strictly modern?

dog-on

It really seems that HJ has no cards to play.

There are countless posts made on many threads attacking the position that JC was, in the end, most likely a myth. These attacks always reference the "fact" that there is just such an abundance of evidence for the HJ that the MJ position is absurd.

Well, in about 20 pages of discussion on this thread, when all that was asked for was for someone to lay-out the HJ evidence, I must say that the HJ position has completely failed.

Of course, it should not be surprising. Happens to the best of myths all the time...

aa5874

All I have seen presented is basically three ambiguous extra-biblical references to the word 'Christ' in Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger.

Gamera

I think that's exactly what happened. You've just made my point. Paul preached a gospel of Jesus involving certain biographical claims. The Synoptics picked up that narrative and expanded it.

My point is made.

They expanded the narrative, that's clear. Nobody preached the synotics -- the are long literary text. The gospel is something preached on a street corner. It is a brief narrative, not a text. It existed before it was written down.

This doesn't explain where they do accord.

Sure I would. The source of the gospel narrative (according to Paul) has nothing to do with the content. Indeed, in Galatians, Paul indicates he was preaching a narrative not unlike what James and Peter were preaching. He just got it directly from the horses mouth.

That's a different issue. It you want to cut and paste your way to your conclusion, be my guest. I'm dealing with the texts as we have them.

I really don't care how they formed -- I'm asserting that the gospel is a narrative, both in Paul's version and later texts.

You assumption that any two texts would "agree with each other" is naive. Nor is it really the issue in determining a genetic relationship between the syntoptics themselves and the synoptics and Paul.