teamonger

Yes, Paul sometimes refers to "brethren" in that sense. But in 1 Cor 9:5, he draws a distinction between “apostles” and “brothers of the Lord”. I think a blood relationship makes most sense for the latter reference. Or is there some reason to think that apostles were not also brothers in faith?

Well, what you do you think it means? Paul believed he was living in the end times; I see a correspondence there.

As I said, Paul must argue this way to have any hope of winning the debate with the "pillars". But I don't take this as good evidence that those pillars (who preceded Paul as believers) didn't share any information about Jesus with Paul. 1 Cor shows that Paul and the pillars did agree on many things. Are we to believe that both Paul and the pillars just happened to have the same mystical revelation?

I think the passage above is Paul's exaggeration, his way of impressing the Galatians that he is an apostle on the same level as the pillars.

Are you saying that Paul didn't preach Christ crucified? Sure, the word came to have multiple meanings. It had to be spinned positively, because it had such negative connotations. The cross was a "stumbling block" and "foolishness".

"None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (1 Cor 2:8). If this does not refer to the crucifixion of Jesus, what do you think it means?

LOL... no, actually I have never heard anyone argue that Mark didn't think the world was about to end. Well I take that back, I've heard certain believers argue that. And of course, there are liberals who think those words were put into Jesus' mouth, that Jesus didn't really believe it...

Certainly Paul thought he lived at the end of days, so why would you think Mark didn't believe the same? The writers of 1 Peter, 1 John, Rev, Acts all thought the same. The writer of 2 Peter tried to rationalize why the end hadn't happened yet. The best explanation for this embarrassment is that a real Jesus held the same view: the Kingdom of God was about to happen.

Coincidences happen all the time. There were plenty of apocalytic preachers, and plenty of wars... why should a seeming alignment be so surprising? Had the Jewish war not happened when it did, I think Jesus would've probably been forgotten like all the others.

I don't assume it; but prima facie it appears to me that Mark thought he was writing history, and I haven't seen any good counter evidence.
t

Toto

Fullness of time

teamonger

I'm not trying to build a strawman, just trying to understand. If there can be plenty of real history in the NT, why couldn't a Galilian preacher be a part of that real history?
t

Toto

Is the mere outside possibility that someone existed enough for you?

Every incident concerning Jesus in the earliest gospel, Mark, can be traced to a basis in the Hebrew Scriptures. Almost all of the incidents involved supernatural events of some sort. Mark is theology or literature, not history. There is no surviving source for the biographical details of Jesus. Liberal Christians more or less admit this. They only claim that there is some evidence of a charismatic individual who inspired his followers to found the church.

If you want to understand, please do some background reading.

spin

You've given no substance to the fact that you "found his position persuasive."

Read the first paragraph of the Wiki entry Testimonium_Flavianum.

You seem easily persuaded about certain things.

If this is true for you, concentrate on the argumentation. Deal with evidence and where it leads. I've supplied you with quite a lot and I've received very little feedback other than things like you having "found [E.P. Sanders'] position persuasive."


spin

teamonger

The problem, Merlin, is we can't be sure exactly what claims Jesus made for himself. We're looking at him through the eyes of committed believers writing decades later, so it's not easy to tell how much is real history, and how much is later theology and legend.
t

teamonger

I agree Jesus was not completely original; I think his message probably wasn't much different than John the Baptist's, for example. But I don't see how that makes him less plausible as a human preacher.

Contiguous? Can you point me to wisdom tradition that looks like Jesus' trademark "The kingdom of God is like.. (some real world story)" ?

t

aa5874

Plausibility is irrelevant to historicity. Lies are often plausible.

Plausibility is useless as evidence or corroborative information.

teamonger

Thanks for the explanation, but not for the insult. We each have differing views of good historical methodology, that's all.

I agree that traditions and legends develop quickly (and did so in the case of Christianity), but I suggest that's far easier when there's a substantial historical kernel, rather than thin air. In the case of Ebion, there was nothing to stick to, and far less prima facie evidence.
t

teamonger

Okay. For Paul, appeared the present time was right and appropriate to be the last days. So wouldn't it make sense that Jesus came fairly recently, rather than at some arbitrary distant time in the past?

Did Jesus come in the "fullness of time", and resurrect, and... whoops... let's wait a couple centuries for this to have any effect?
t