aa5874

But in Acts of the Apostles, Peter himself also claimed he had a similar revelation or was told to preach to the Gentiles by God. So Paul's gospel to the uncircumcision was really not original, Peter was first.

See Acts 15.7.

gdeering

To Jay,

As a non-expert I'm faced with a puzzle, I agree that Paul is all about his "received" authority, but one's assumptions of Paul's character does not answer the most basic questions. Paul had the chance to learn Jesus' history and he chose not to. Knowing some of these stories would have made his work much easier, what better teaching tools could he have had? I prefer to think not of an argument from silence as an argument for ignorance, one would think Paul might have mentioned visiting the empty tomb, or talking to the hundreds (thousands) of people who saw and heard Jesus (not to mention that his mother was a virgin)? It's almost as if Paul was not interested in Jesus' life on Earth. I have to do a little homework, why did Paul go to Jerusalem anyway?

Which brings me to my second stumbling block to accepting any of this...

To martini,
The revelation quote is also disturbing, for me it is one of the most convincing elements in making me believe that the mythacists have a point. Who needs information when you have knowledge through revelation. Reminds me of a certain President, and look where we are now.


I can't escape the conclusion that there is no need to include Paul with any search for an historical Jesus, and perhaps, no reason to assume that Paul and the synoptic gospels thought about Jesus in the same way?


Gregg

spin

We have all been trained to look at Paul through the church's view, through Acts. I do it. I can't help it that much, but not all the stuff I know about Paul comes from Paul and I don't know if that information is veracious.

Paul's revelation is itself disturbing. It indicates that Paul didn't get his gospel from other Jesus believers. This makes us ask what the people in Jerusalem knew and how much we are reconstructing them in the light of later ideas, such as those found in Acts. In an effort to understand Paul's statement about his revelation for what it says, I have tried to remove all the later ideas and think of the people in Jerusalem as Jewish messianists, people who Josephus may have lumped into his fourth category of big "Z" Zealots. Messianists like John the Baptist were expecting the messiah.

So, if the Jerusalem group were normal messianists, the too would have been waiting for the messiah, not following a dead one. Paul being in his eyes before the revelation a staunch conservative would have been in conflict with these messianists, so he would have done acts against them. They in turn being Jews would have seen that torah observance is necessary in order to be a Jew, so any gentile who became a proselyte of messianic Judaism would also need to observe the torah.

Paul after his revelation sought support for his new views, looking for contact with other messianists. Eventually, he went to Jerusalem, partly due to the problems he was having with his Galatian community, a community that had been told by Jews that they had to observe the torah and thus be circumcised. We don't know what happened in the Jerusalem meeting, but Paul didn't come away enamored with the "so-called pillars". I don't think they got past the sticking issue of torah observance. It finished in cold courtesy. "Paul, you go off to your gentiles, but remember the poor."

I think this makes sense of the implications of his revelation, a gospel not from men, but from Jesus. A messiah that wasn't a messiah, but a gentile savior.

Paul's revelation is a stumbling block for a historical Jesus. He didn't need one. He never met one. He converted his followers without one. This doesn't mean that he thought Jesus wasn't real. It just means that there was no need for a historical Jesus for him to have his religion. And if he didn't then there is no need for a historical Jesus. The gospel traditions may have grown up around Paul's savior. The most economical explanation dealing with all the data is that Paul started the Jesus religion and real Jesus was not necessary.

Is that what happened? I don't know. It is merely a functional alternative approach to the data, a more economical one. Once you have a figure central to a religion speculation and retelling adds bone and flesh... all the way down to contemplating the ridiculous question of whether Jesus was of the same substance as god or not, a question that church fathers had no grounds for asking or answering. But that's just the sort of thing traditions do. History and facts are not important. What is important is trust in the tradition against all else.


spin

aa5874

[QUOTE=spin;5709732] But, upon reflection, the letter writer actually needs an historical Jesus that died, just like a Psychic needs to be absolutely sure that when they say the dead spoke to them, that the person was indeed dead and buried or cremated.

For the letter writer called Paul to claim he had revelations from a once dead Jesus it is compulsory that it is actually known or believed that Jesus did really die and was resurrected beforehand. The letter writer must assume or know at least, that those reading his letters are aware or believe Jesus had died.

And the letter writer must be specific, he has to name the person who has died and he did identify that person as Jesus.

So, when the letter writer said Jesus revealed things to him, it is expected that those who read the letters would know exactly who Jesus was.

Jesus was the Son of the God of the Jews that was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended during the reign of Tiberius.

That is the Jesus of the letter writer called Paul.

Amaleq13

It does now.

spin

Paul got his gospel not from humans nor was he taught it by humans, but from revelation from Jesus (Gal 1:11f). Paul doesn't say he got some of the gospel by revelation. That's just too hard for Amaleq13 to get into his head. Or wait, maybe someone gave him a trick bible that has the words some of the gospel written in crayon on it -- which is guaranteed to confuse him.

Yup all messianists of sorts.

Messianism.

And I bet you go around drawing moustaches on posters of women as well.


spin

gdeering

Thanks for the reply Spin.

I might hit the archives here and see what people think about the connections between Paul and non-orthodox Christian roots (which I assume will lead to the Gnostics). For someone with a mystical mind-set it must have been a drag to tether the ideas of godhood to the nuts and bolts questions of the faithful fan-base. I'm not a believer, but for those who are, do they send much time on the warmed over greek philosophy in the opening of John, or do they go straight to the biographical material and the stories?

I used to be a painter, and I still work in the art world, and there are examples of artists who following the dictates of one moment, become successful, and then have to change their conceptual argument (for a body of work) to keep it line with the way the work is currently being thought of by the public.

I'm thinking of Gerhard Richter who developed an abstract painting style in the late 70's early 80's based on an idea of ironic detachment. His point was that abstraction was a stylistic position - not an heroic presentation of the sublime (as the older traditional Abstract Expressionist models were generally presented). These paintings became wildly successful over the decades (and as with his other non-abstract work, extraordinarily valuable), and the art world has forgotten the work's conceptual meaning and now accepts the paintings as irony-less examples of traditional abstract paining. Richter has gone from an intellectual stance of art about art to the more traditional role of a master painter.

So this is a long example meant to say that one can stay on top and re-align oneself as success dictates - while appearing not to change at all (the paintings look stylistically similar). I guess I'm wondering (with the historical Jesus argument) if there was a subterranean conceptual shift that might not have changed the outward perception of the message?

Which in the case of early christianity, might be forcing a Christ with-in history (and knowing what he said even though there were no witnesses) and losing (or down-grading) the imagination sparking mysticism of someone who did not need a Messiah with an earthly pedigree?

Anyway, it's a long post that was meant to just say thanks for your thoughts.


Gregg

Toto

Look for threads that discuss The Fabrication of the Christ Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Harold Leidner.

Did Paul write in 70-100 AD?

Leidner's book is interesting, although I am not sure it is worth the price on Amazon. It presents Paul as primarily Jewish, later incorporated into Christian orthodoxy.

Later Gnostics claimed to rely on Paul, and there is that book by Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk), which has a misleading title - it does not even discuss the idea that Paul was a Gnostic.

There is so little that is really known about Paul that your imagination might be a good as anyone's.

Clivedurdle

A couple of a hundred years before the assumed time of Paul, the debates about circumcision and Torah observance were very real - was Judaism to stay Jewish or become Greek? People were killed over this argument. Should the High Priest eat pork?

Paul is obviously a member of another variation on this debate - that gentiles can become new Jews. He is very much a Greek Jew. His revelation - a typical human mind tactic of finding a solution to a problem through a new synthesis of a thesis and antithesis, this time with the ace up the sleeve - honestly believed by Paul - of divine revelation to him - is another resolution of the conflict between the be ye holy of Judaism and the world of the highly educated but barbar - ian "pagans" of the Greco- Roman world.

The Jewish wars had been going on for centuries before Paul and continued for at least a century afterwards - arguably they are still continuing.

The Lord Jesus Christ is a logical invention, synthesis, to attempt to resolve the real conflict about do you have to be circumcised to be a Jew - this is a symbolic act summarising the issues.

Paul going to Jerusalem can be understood as the members of one sect talking to the members of another sect.

And the rest - the social construction of a godman who walked around Palestine in the time of Pilate and the later turning of this oriental cult into a world religion - is history.

And would not a better approach to this whole area be to treat xianities as a Greek sects of Judaism until the time of Constantine? Are we looking for evidence in the wrong places? We should be looking at Jewish communities first.

In the Shadow of the Temple (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Oskar Skarsaune
http://books.google.com/books?id=xQb...esult#PPA25,M1

http://www.bry-backmanor.org/holidayfun/hannukah.html

gdeering

Thanks for the links Toto. I hope my art reference was not too neophite-ish or obvious. I'm the sort of person who needs a conceptual framework for the day before I get out of bed.

Gregg