jgoodguy

If indeed there was a historic Paul. A mythic Paul, does make the mythic Jesus case a bit more difficult. Then there is the mythical redactor redacting the HJ out of Paul or into Paul, both or neither. Since we do not have the original autographs or any mention of Paul prior to mid 1st century, at least 100 years after the alleged Pauline epistles, who really knows.

ApostateAbe

It seems very evident, however, that one feature of the present radical movement, and one which looms large in the vision of many of its advocates, is a hatred for "theology" and the "theologians."

ApostateAbe

The argument about the resurrection seemed to be most relevantly a rebuttal to the second thesis of Arthur Drews, that:

Paul, the oldest witness for Christianity, knows nothing of a 'historical' Jesus. His incarnated Son of God is just that Jewish-heathen redeeming divinity Jesus whom Paul merely set in the center of his religious world-view and elevated to a higher degree of religio-ethical reflection.

This perspective, of course, closely aligns with that of Earl Doherty and many other Jesus-minimalists.

Case argues that the resurrection has no relevance or power without it being believed to be on earth. Purely mythical characters were also "resurrected" for sure, but, as you know, the resurrection is almost the exclusive reason why Jesus was ever relevant to begin, and it was the central element of the entire Christian faith (for Isis and Mithras it was a minor plot point). It would make very little sense for Paul's idea of "resurrection" to be something that happens in the spirit world or explicit-myth world, since it doesn't have nearly the same level of religious motivational power anywhere but on Earth among human beings, where it clearly never happens as far as anyone has seen.

I don't know exactly what he means by "resurrection experiences." He could mean simply the reputed resurrection experiences, as in the initial lies or mistake and the subsequent myth, such as Paul's accounting of the 500 witnesses, or he could mean actual observations of the resurrected Jesus, in which case of course he and I would part ways, but that would be unlikely, since Case also writes, "The miraculous resurrection of Jesus is undoubtedly a tenet of the first Christians' faith, but to go back of that faith and establish by critical tests the reliability of any corresponding objective fact is held to be no longer possible."

Doug Shaver

Excuse me? We think theological presuppositions are irrelevant to historical inquiry, and therefore we hate theology?

The more of your stuff I read, Abe, the harder it gets for me to distinguish you from the average evangelical apologist.

aa5874

There is NO such thing as a "mythic Paul". It is "FICTITIOUS PAUL".

The Pauline writings are SIMPLY writings made sometime AFTER the Fall of the Temple and were MANIPULATED to appear to be BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were written to INVENT "Apostolic succession" and a BOGUS "history of the early Church".

The very Church CLAIMED "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

It is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT that it was the Church itself that claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke. See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25.6

It is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT that it was the Church itself that claimed "Paul" was Beheaded During the reign of Nero. See "Church History" 2.25.5

It is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT to understand that it has been deduced by Scholars that gLuke was most likely written AFTER gMatthew, gMark and AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

So, "Paul" was MOST likely ALIVE AFTER the Fall of the Temple if he was AWARE of gLuke.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity suggest that the Pauline character is fictitious.

ApostateAbe

Of course you mean "...mid 2nd century..." I almost thought you were trolling for a second. Why not go with the most probable date of composition based on analyses of the contents? Why try to push to the maximum physical limit? You can propose any date you want, but one date is not just as good as another. One date is far more probable than the others, because it was written at one time and one time only, and the evidence, especially the contents of the texts themselves, is extremely relevant. If a second-century date is far more improbable than a first-century date, then we shouldn't leave a second-century date on the table, even if we really wanna. We need to take the evidence seriously.

For example, there is seemingly no plausible reason why anyone would write in the mouth of Paul that those who are dead would be raised up and precede "we" who are living at the time of the coming of the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18), if it were not written by Paul himself, who apparently believed that the rapture was around the next corner.

Same for the contents of Galatians--there is no conceivable reason why anyone but Paul would write of a bitter rhetorical conflict at the Council of Jerusalem with Cephas (Peter) about whether or not gentiles should be admitted into the faith. We know what the Christian interest was by examining the book of Acts, where everyone was unified and peaceful, but Paul in his epistle to the Galatians has his fists clenched and is red in the face.

ApostateAbe

I was quoting Case, who was no Christian apologist. The sociological situation was the same then as it is today--when steeped in the us-vs.-them trenches of Jesus-minimalism, then reasonable arguments that you once heard from apologists will always seem like bogus nonsense when it comes from anywhere else. Case was alluding to that mentality in that quote.

Vorkosigan

If you have a comment about Case's arguments, please make it. Carr has pithily yet amply demonstrated that Case is hopelessly dim and out of date. If you have a rebuttal, put it up and stop whining.

Vorkosigan

ApostateAbe

OK. To quote myself:

A lot of very good points in that, especially the reflections of the myth of the resurrection. How meaningful would a belief in a resurrection be if it were merely a matter of explicit myth, fiction, allegory, or spirituality? The myth has power almost purely because it is an extraordinary event in the context of earthly experiences, and it has little or no persuasive power without the belief in Jesus as an earthly human figure.

aa5874

It is just ILLOGICAL to use "Paul" to CORROBORATE "Paul". That is PRECISELY why I cannot accept your ABSURD claims.

If you want to date "Paul" you NEED external credible sources of antiquity.

There is simple ZERO credible external corroborative sources for "Paul".

And further, "Paul" claimed he was AWARE of WRITTEN sources of the Jesus story.

See 1 Cor 15.3-4 But, you are WASTING your time the NT Canon does NOT contain the Heresy that Jesus was a man. The NT Canon is a NON-HERETICAL compilation of the Church.

In the NT, Jesus Christ was the Child of a Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

Attempting to use the NT Canon, a Non-Heretical compilation, as evidence to claim Jesus was just a man which was IDENTIFIED as Heresy is tantamount to PERJURY in a court trial.

It is completely disingenuous to FLAGRANTLY mis-represent the NT Canon when you KNOW in ADVANCE of posting that the "historical Jesus" is HERESY and was NOT taught in the NT Canon.

Please read "Against Heresies" and see for yourself that the "historical Jesus" is HERESY.