MCalavera

Because TedM already did.

The problem is you refuse to accept the plain literal meaning of the text and want words like "born" and "flesh" to mean something other than what they plainly mean.

I'm pretty sure it's because you realize their literal meanings don't fit well with your "Jesus Puzzle". So you have to force them to fit by changing their shapes.

As said before, TedM already did so himself. Do you really want me to copy and paste them here again?

Only according to your speculations that you wish you could confirm as true.

My point is that, even if Jesus was a mythological character, Paul and the others did believe him to be a historical figure. He was born of a man according to the flesh. That's a historical event.

And you know about the reference(s) to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion and such. But you just choose to deny them as historical references.

So, really, the issue lies in your mind, not in the text itself.

stephan huller

I am not sure whether this is the 'easier' answer. I have my reservations about arguing for what is essentially the Marcionite interpretation of the New Testament from the orthodox version of the Apostolikon. You couldn't do that with respect to the 'gospels' - or in particular the Gospel of Luke. So why is it okay to do so with respect to what was originally the Marcionite 'midrash' on the gospel - i.e. the Apostolikon (= the so-called 'letters of Paul')?

I have stayed out of this debate because I think both sides are engaged in a complete waste of time. IMO a meaningful debate has to start from real historical schools of thought. The Marcionite position is as old as any, if not the oldest. Why haggle over born of a man according to the flesh? Clearly Doherty is trying to take the pious position head on. But is it a realistic position? Did anyone in history ever interpret 'born of woman according to the flesh' in the way he is suggesting?

I agree with him that important traditions held that Jesus was not a human being. Yet a lot of the hangers on like his interpretation because in fact it is 'easier' than admitting that the actual collection of letters which supported a wholly divine Jesus is lost.

I guess I took exception to the word 'easier.' I have mostly stayed out of this debate but just for the record the Jesus of the original tradition that canonized the New Testament was NOT a human being, but a lot of things being haggled over here were likely outside of the original historical debate between the Marcionites and orthodox (= Palutians)

aa5874

Well, you cannot use the NT Canon AT ALL to argue that Jesus was born as a man, lived as a man and died as a man.



That is EXACTLY what the NT is NOT about.

Don't you even understand that it would have been considered Blasphemy for a Jewish man to have claimed he was God or for "Paul" a Pharisee and a Hebrew of Hebrews to have claimed a man could forgive Sin?


The NT Canon does NOT promote the Heresy that Jesus was a man, lived as a man and died as a man and could forgive the sins of mankind as a man.


The NT is about God INCARNATE a MYTH character who, UNLIKE a man, was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day to REMIT the Sins of ALL mankind.

It was this very NON-HUMAN resurrection of Jesus that is the FOUNDATION of the Christian Faith and Remission of Sins.

1Co 15:17 - Please FIRST find a credible historical source of antiquity if you want to argue that the "Pauline" Jesus was a man.

Look at Galatians 1.1

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a man.

MCalavera

Um, no, the evidence for Jesus being historical is strong and stronger than what you and Doherty and others wish.

Unreliably dated? Then why go to Paul for your arguments in the first place?

I noticed in the article you linked me to, Doherty mentions Galatians 1:15-16 to support his view that Paul was shown Jesus through revelation. Well, duh, nobody's arguing that. But he should've mentioned the next verses after.

Galatians 1:17-24
This fits in well with the events in the Book of Acts. There were Apostles before Paul who actually witnessed the Lord on earth, and Paul acknowledged this himself here. There were believers before him. In fact, according to his own words, he used to persecute them.

So is this one an interpolation? Or is the Book of Acts unreliably dated and, therefore, can't be trusted?

Fine, let's quote 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 with clear context.

1 Corinthians 15:1-11
Notice Paul bases the Christian faith on historical events pertaining to Jesus. He died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead. This is what the Christian faith is based on - a set of historical events (whether you choose to consider them as such or not). According to this same faith, he also appeared to many after he was resurrected. And, last but not least, he appeared to Paul, "as to one abnormally born". This indicates a special unique revelation in the case of Paul. Once again, it fits well with what the other books in the New Testament state.

The above is just a small tidbit of evidence that support the historicity of Jesus. I can post more evidence later if anyone's interested.

aa5874

Acts is a work of FICTION. The very first chapter of Acts CLEARLY stated that Jesus was WITNESSED ascending to heaven in a CLOUD.

This is simply FICTION.

1. A man cannot ascend in a cloud.

2. The supposed disciples could NOT have WITNESSED Jesus in a cloud on his way to heaven.

You think Acts is evidence of history.

No way.

Acts is evidence of Mythology.

Ac 1:9 -

MCalavera

But I did. So you're wrong.

Posting in CAPS does not make your arguments any better.

So Paul was a blasphemer according to the traditional Jews. So what?

Yes, it does. Have you ever read the 66 books in the New Testament?

He died like a man and was buried like a man. And he was born like a man.

Also, read 1 Corinthians 15:12 and onwards.

Don't forget his death.

And?

I already did. It's right in front of your eyes, my friend.

Read 1 Corinthians 15:21.

Who is this second man?

Galatians 1:1 has a context. Jesus wasn't simply just a man according to Paul. That we can agree on.

MCalavera

But that's what it is said they witnessed. And you'd be surprised what superstitious stuff you can get a group of naive people to believe in.

The whole extended family on my father's side all believe there are demons inhabiting the attic of their mother's house, and each one will give you an interesting story of what he/she witnessed there.

I even know a group of villagers who claim they all saw the Virgin Mary at a park near a church. And they're all convinced that they did.

Kapyong

Gday,

Nope.
Paul does NOT acknowledge anyone else witnessed the Lord on Earth.

He says the opposite :
1. that he learned the Gospel from NO MAN, but from revelation
and
2. that HE is just as much an apostle as the others because he too has SEEN the lord.

The passages you quoted certainly said nothing of anyone witnessing a historical Jesus. The mere word "apostle" does NOT prove someone met Jesus - Paul is just as much an apostle as the others and he only had visions.


Yes, we agree.
But they didn't ever MEET Jesus, as Paul makes clear.


K.

aa5874

Well, that is EXACTLY what I told you Jesus was a resurrected MYTH God/man. He was NOT simply a man he was GOD in the FLESH of a man and was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day---A resurrected MYTH.

The Pauline Jesus could have ONLY been BELIEVED to have existed as a GOD/MAN.

Now, I hope you STOP arguing that the Pauline Jesus was simply a man.

I repeat, you CANNOT use the Pauline writings to argue that Jesus was a man you will destroy your argument as you just did.

Jesus was a resurrected God INCARNATE in the Pauline writings.

TedM

I think he means the non-Paul epistles. Here's a link which has all those quotes too (the citations at the bottom are all showing in a pale pink color and I no longer have access to the site to make them more visible. Highlight them to see better):
the link