Iskander

Perhaps you are overlooking a misplaced comma in the text or a writer idiosyncratic style?

dog-on

On the contrary, it debunks GDon's claim that a prima facie reading of this passage refers to a human Jesus.

archibald

Well, setting aside that it's trying to use an odd interpretation in the first place...Israelis as human from a worldy point of view.....Jesus as human from a wordly point of view.....

Ok. Dog. If it seems to you like it debunks anything, then I suppose that is indisputably true of your opinion that it does. and you are left with only 89 other tasks. :]

dog-on

Why is it an odd interpretation, specifically?

archibald

Israelis as human from a wordly point of view?

My subsequent point is that it doesn't even matter.

Whatever the Israelis are, the same phrase is used for Christ.

dog-on

Though it doesn't say Israelis as human, from a worldly point of view.

TedM

Mythicism only requires a few interpolations? How can you possibly know that? You must assume that Paul only referred to that other worldly place that Jesus lived and died in a 'few times', that he didn't explain how Jesus could have been descended from David in such a place, born of a woman in such a place, etc..That's one whopper of an assumption.


What it means is that whoever modified Paul saw no need to counter the knowledge that Paul didn't believe that Jesus was the human/God of the Gospel. HAD Paul believed that way, whoever modified it would NOT have rested on his laurels with bringing Paul 'in line with orthodox theology' in a way that leaves the gospel Jesus out of the epistles. Rather we would see perhaps dozens of unambiguous references to teachings and doings of Jesus of Nazareth. The mere fact that whatever interpolations were made did not do this suggests that there was never any awareness of Paul having an anti-orthodox belief of such magnitude, which suggests that he never did have.

The very idea that that the most influential originator of Christianity didn't believe Jesus had walked this earth and yet we have no evidence that early Christians were aware of that heretical belief--no evidence in his epistles of such an awareness to correct his 'errors'--makes the idea highly unlikely. Much more unlikely than the idea that Paul was simply focused more on the theology of a risen Messiah than the human side of a short-lived preacher.

archibald

Ok. Israelis as kata sarka. Jesus as kata sarka. I wish I could see what you are trying to say.

dog-on

Have you ever heard a Christian say something about being in the spirit?

Toto

I know that by reading Paul's letters. Otherwise, I can't follow your objection.


Orthodoxy only required reciting the Nicene Code, not believing in the details of Jesus of Nazareth derived from the gospels.

Remember, the historical Jesus is a modern idea. In the second century, the only requirement was to believe that Christ came in the flesh.

What we are aware of is that the major heretic of the time was Marcion, who believed that Jesus was not born of a woman. We see an effort to "correct" that and other Marcionite ideas in the epistles.

The idea that Paul could be totally uninterested in the recent human who sacrificed himself for the world is very unlikely. It only seems likely to you because it has been repeated so often.