charles

Hi I am new here, but couldn't there be two traditions, one that believed Jesus was a person and the other which thought he was an angel or some supernatural being?

maryhelena

I suggest you have a look at this thread re Damascus and Aretes. I don't think you will find any evidence there, or elsewhere, that would allow this text to be used to date Paul.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=268718

show_no_mercy

Exactly.

The assumption is that the gospels represent accurate history. The second assumption is that Paul is talking about the same person as in the gospel narratives.

When we put these two assumptions together, we should see some sort of conscillience. Places where they compliment each other. If there's no conscillience other than superficial ones (like the name "Jesus Christ", and his crucifixion) then one of those assumptions are wrong. The vast majority of the gospel narratives are about Jesus' teachings and things that he did. None of these things are in Paul.

The objection that people who argue for the Catholic rendition of Christian origins have is that Paul only focused on the spiritual Jesus whereas the gospel narratives are about the human Jesus. But as I wrote in the quoted post, there are plenty of places where Paul could have just deferred to his Lord's own word instead of making convoluted arguments. The only time that he appeals to things said by "the lord" he is quoting the LXX.

One might bring up the marriage argument that Paul says is a commandment of "the lord" but this falls flat when Paul could have just used Jesus' marital status as an argument. He seems to want to emulate Christ in other aspects.

Thus there's a fair argument that Paul's Jesus and the gospel Jesus are not the same person. Especially since he even contradicts the Jesus presented in the gospel narratives.

The gospels not being accurate history is not an a priori assumption. It's a conclusion based on them not lining up with Paul's letters among other things.

Solo

This is the crucial point, Doug, at least crucial to my view of the texts. Paul observed piety to the human Jesus in that he refused to consider second hand information about him from - evidently - those who knew him and those who vouched for things he said and did. One can do a mythicist snake dance about this all one wants, but Paul taboos all the "hearsay" about the earthly Jesus (1 Cr 2:2, 2 Cr 5:16). Period. Now, it's worthwhile to remember that the info reaching Paul about Jesus was not through channels he considered authoritative, and the the putative companions of Jesus, the "so-called pillars" (I consider the James of Gal 2:9 to be a different figure than that of 2:12 - and 1:19, if that verse comes from Paul), he holds in abject contempt. He would not condescend to buy the earthly "Jesus" from them when he has the exalted Jesus in heaven "on the hot line", so to speak. Yet, it is that Jesus of the Nazarenes, that Paul is re-referencing, which is clear from his trip to Jerusalem and his offer to make himself useful to James' the Just's saints (which are of course persons different from his interlocutors in Gal 2.). Paul has piety towards the earthly figure but he will not buy into the Nazarene view that he was killed by "lawless" men ( 1Th 2:14-15 is not authentic Paul, IMO). First, there is the question whether Paul would consider the rulers even theoretically capable of lawlessness (Rom 13:1-2), the second of course is that the admission that the execution was "unlawful" would undermine Paul's universal salvation schema. Law would still be valid and Jesus sacrifice therefore not more than a plea for a better administration of justice. That was just not good enough for Paul. The guidance of the spirit in the gnosis of the Lord is far superior. The spirit - i.e. Paul's own experience with the spirit - told him that Jesus (as a pre-existent son of god) was sinless even if he was found guilty and killed under the law.

Let me try, and don't feel obligated to believe it, just because I think I been there and done that. If I am right about Paul's conversion experience, as a first hypermanic episode in a late onset of acute bipolarity, then what strikes us the unreal apotheosis of a recent ordinary human are the attempts to rationalize artifacts of frank psychosis. Classically, the manic episode shows three distinct phases, (numbered I. to III., page 77, Manic Depressive Illness, Goodwin & Jamison, Oxford, 1990 (or via: amazon.co.uk)). In the first, a distinct 'madcap' joy, euphoria and a feeling of grandeur hold sway, in the second, the agitation begins to turn into dysphoria and in the third, panic, sense of persecution dominate and the subject becomes mentally disorganized. In severe attacks, the subject becomes delirious, first with joy, then with acute fear.
When mania struck Paul, it first trasported him to euphoric heights, (third heaven). Paul does not tell us much directly of the acute depressive phase that followed, but his letters provide the counter-polar clue in a number of places. The most striking "mirror" of Paul's bipolarity is
Rom 6:5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. Paul, when he enters his manic episode is preoccupied thematically with Jesus (whom he hates and badmouthes - evident from 1 Cr 1:23) and naturally relates the interprets the altered consciousness, and flight of ideas (coming as if from a source other than one's ordinary ego) as revelations about the Son. Into that framework falls the glorious grandeur that lifts Paul out of himself and later, of course, the horrendous torture of the persecutory depressive agitation which he likens to the death on the cross. To those who are spared travail like Paul's, he naturally looks like he is overdoing it, but he is not ! Emil Kraepelin, the German psychiatrist who diagnostically defined manic-depression (bipolar disorder) wrote: Very commonly it is asserted that the disease is a greater torture than any other, that the patient would far, far rather endure any bodily pain than the disorder of the mind. (Emil Kraepelin, Manic Depressive Insanity and Paranoia, tr. by Mary Barclay, Edinburgh 1921, p.22)

Of course, as Gospel of Thomas tells us, those who have been persecuted within themselves truly have come to know the Father (GT 69). It seems to me the most natural explanation for Paul's apotheosis of Jesus and addressing him as Lord, is a placating tactic to someone who has the power to do a lot of damage to Paul. It also seems clear that Paul - though he plays apostolic politics around this - was genuinely repentant of questioning God's election of an unknown, undistinguished, and despised Galilean to do the most important work any human would be asked to do. (Again kindly consult Paul's credal manifest in 1 Cr 1:18-31). If I were to be cynical about all this, which I admit I sometimes am, it looks almost like Paul created his prototype of the Christ myth to get God out of his hair, i.e. dissociated part of his self to do the dominance spiel to which Paul's character was wired, with God enthusiastically approving, or if not that, at least registering Paul's complaints about Satan molesting him.

Jiri

Solo

So, tell us maryhelena, how did Ebion come up with the myth that Mary got preggers the ordinary way ?

(warning: it's a trick question !)

Here is your problem: if there are no other arguments against the historical Jesus other than the lack of independent evidence, the existence of the Ebionites who claimed no supernatural status of Jesus, requires:

1) in the mythical scenario, that there are two stages in the myth-making: first, one that creates a pagan, god-like redeemer Jesus, and second, one that downgrades him to a status of an excellent but otherwise plainly human Jew,

2) in the historical scenario, the addition of mythical superstructure to an excellent but otherwise plainly human Jew, by (,and for,) a culture which is essentially non-Jewish and pagan.

Two questions,

1) which of the two scenarios is the more parsimonious one ?

2) what, in your opinion, would have prompted stage 2, in scenario 1, i.e. the re-Judaizing of a plainly pagan godhead ?

Jiri

aa5874

Wonderful. You have shot down your own assumptions.

Once you REJECT the Pauline writer's statement about Aretas then it MUST be obvious that an early date for the Pauline writings is questionable.

In the Pauline writings there is ONLY one single passage that I can find to place the Pauline writers before the Fall of the Temple if it is assumed to be true. That passage is 2 Cor. 11.32-33.

Now, this is from an earlier post.

What evidence re early documents suggests that Paul's writing preceded the gospel writing?

What re early documents?

Those from the RUMOR MILL!!! "Chinese whispers"!!!

Please name the early sources that suggest the Pauline writings were before the written gospels!!

You simply cannot do so.

The Pauline story is CAST in Stone.

The Pauline writer himself told the story.

He was an EYEWITNESS and Corroborative source of the non-historical Resurrection of Jesus and his Gospel was DIRECTLY dependent upon his WITNESS to the non-historical event.

The non-historical resurrection was the MAIN event and was the event that SAVED mankind from sin. The Pauline writer SAW and HEARD from the FIRSTBORN of the dead.


1Co 15:8 -
1Co 15:14 - 1Co 15:17 - Once the "non-historical resurrection" was NOT witnessed by the Pauline writers there would have been NO Epistles.

But, there are Pauline Epistles, the non-historical resurrection did happen.


The Pauline writers SAVED Jesus. He did RISE as he predicted.

The Pauline writers WITNESSED FICTION.

Mr 9:31

What fiction from the Pauline writers!!!!

ApostateAbe

My model holds that the gospels are pseudo-historical accounts. If Jesus had disciples, then we would all predict that those disciples would become leaders of the church. Paul says that Peter, James and John were leaders of the church. The gospels say that Peter, James and John were important disciples of Jesus.

You say that I am assuming my conclusion. I am not. I am using other elements of my model to explain the problems perceived by the critics.

As an illustration of the fallacy of the specific objection (not a complete comparison to the complete debate--I am not trying to insult mythicists or superskeptics), imagine that there is one guy who thinks that Shakespeare existed only as the pen name of Francis Bacon, and there is another guy who thinks that the works of "Shakespeare" were penned by an actual William Shakespeare. The conversation may go like this:

"If there was a Shakespeare, then why don't we find Shakespeare writing any letters to his parents? That is something we would expect of a non-existent Shakespeare."

"Shakespeare probably didn't have a good relationship with his parents."

"But, you have no direct proof of that. You have only the doubtful inferences of the father-son relationships seen in Bacon's plays. What you are really doing is assuming your conclusion."

I would like to resolve this objection, because it is an objection that comes up over and over and over again. If you find something wrong with the analogy, then don't criticize the analogy. The analogy is meant to help you understand the argument, so criticize either the premises or the logic of the argument. Don't tell me that we have far more evidence for Shakespeare than we do for Jesus, because that is not relevant to the purpose of the analogy. The purpose is to show you that I can use inferences of the evidence, even if they are doubtful, to build my model of history, and I can use that model to explain problems, even if my model is different from your model. And that is not nearly the same as assuming my conclusions.
You see, this is essentially the same objection coming up again. In order to explain a perceived problem, all I need is a plausible inference of the evidence to resolve the absurdity. I can even settle on a plausibility that doesn't have evidence but doesn't contradict the evidence, either. I don't need unambiguous evidence to explain a problem.

aa5874

Your reasoning is most illogical. It produces BOGUS results where FICTION becomes history.

In the Gospels, Jesus claimed he would be killed and that he would be RAISED on the third day.

Jesus was killed and was RAISED from the dead on the third day in the Gospels.

In the Pauline writings, Jesus was killed and was raised the third day.

Based on your hopelessly flawed reasoning the resurrection did occur.

ApostateAbe

Doug Shaver, I do think the objection is fallacious, but I don't blame you so much for it, because it is really very common among people who criticize historical theories. They forget that an alternative explanation needs only to be plausible in order to compete with another theory with equal or lesser (though most often lesser) certainty. Here is an example of such an argument being used in my TheologyWeb thread. I proposed that Jesus was eaten by scavengers rather than being buried in a tomb, in part because there was a poet of the third century who described crucifixion as such. Someone objected,
This answer is a good one:
It is all about which explanations are most probable, not about providing concrete certainty. A proposed solution to a problem needs only to help show that the entire theory is more probable than the competition.

Toto

You don't have a model. You have a premise that allows you to assume there is some history in the gospels and in Paul's letters. But I don't think you have enough there to call it a model.

And what is a pseudo-historical account? A fake account in the form of a historical account with no real history, or a spiced up account with some history? I think the term is used for the first possibility, but you are using it as the second sense. :huh:

I'm afraid you haven't explained anything. If Paul's account was written first and the gospels were written later, the gospel writers would have picked up Peter, James and John as names for some of Jesus' disciples.

Again, you do not have anything as complex as a model. When you make inferences from doubtful evidence, you do not add any explanatory value.

But your "explanation" will just be an ad hoc excuse if it is grounded on mere plausibility and lack of evidence.