Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 06-26-2009, 09:40 PM

I clicked Toto's Amazon Link, and I did not realize that Jesus the Magician is so expensive in its 1998 incarnation. I bought the 1981 first edition years ago, although these are available in paperback, used, for half the price of the 1998 paperback edition Toto cited. Go to the library, folks.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Not meaning to pick a beef or anything, aa, but why would this necessarily have to be odd?

Morton Smith (if that's his real name) had pointed out many instances of ancient magicians (the serious practitioners of the art of controlling demons and spirits, not the kind who make elephants disappear by smoke & mirrors) seeking to have communion with spirits for all manner of reasons, including the receipt of revelations or various kinds. This includes spirits of the dead. See his book Jesus the Magician (or via: amazon.co.uk). There was one case where a magician kills a boy to keep its spirit captive to do his bidding.

For a nifty selection of actual ancient Greek and Egyptian Demotic spells, recovered from the finest garbage dumps of Egypt and the literature of Greece, Rome and the east, seek out Hans Dieter Betz's The Greek Magical Papyri (or via: amazon.co.uk). Some of the ingredients these spells required were things like nails from crosses and sculls of executed criminals, etc. I know these spells work because I crashed the servers at the Prodigy dial up service (that dates me, doesn't it?) when I posted some extracts from it to a forum <said as my eyes shift around in a paranoid manner and I nervously wring my hands together>.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, it is extremely odd that the Pauline writer never claimed to have seen Jesus on earth before he got his revelations from the Jesus that left earth and went to heaven.

Switch89 · 06-27-2009, 05:52 AM

@ aa,

1 Corinthians 11:23-34 doesn't say too much, and could easily be interpreted as a mythical scene which was given to Paul or to some other early Christian as a vision. In 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, the word Archaeon (translated as 'rulers of this world' or in your case, princes) can also mean demonic rulers. As for 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Christ could have died in the heavenly (or "New") Jerusalem rather than on earth. In fact, the book of Hebrews envisions Christ making his sacrafice in the Heavenly sanctuary.

Also, allow me to point out that 1 Corinthians 15 says that Jesus died "according to the scriptures" why would Paul have been referring to scriptures when Jesus' death would have been a fact witnessed and attested to by lots of early Christians?

Doug Shaver · 06-27-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

So I'm posing the question: What do we make of Paul's silence?

I make of it that Paul never heard of any earthly man who had any connection with the Jesus of the canonical gospels.

Of course most Christians, like aa5874, find that unbelievable, but it looks to me like the most parsimonious inference.

aa5874 · 06-27-2009, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

1 Corinthians 11:23-34 doesn't say too much, and could easily be interpreted as a mythical scene which was given to Paul or to some other early Christian as a vision. In 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, the word Archaeon (translated as 'rulers of this world' or in your case, princes) can also mean demonic rulers. As for 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Christ could have died in the heavenly (or "New") Jerusalem rather than on earth. In fact, the book of Hebrews envisions Christ making his sacrafice in the Heavenly sanctuary.

Also, allow me to point out that 1 Corinthians 15 says that Jesus died "according to the scriptures" why would Paul have been referring to scriptures when Jesus' death would have been a fact witnessed and attested to by lots of early Christians?

First, in order to resolve any ambiguity in the Pauline letters, one must use other references to clarify or resolve any confusion about the word "Archaeon". It must be noted that the translators did not write "demonic rulers", and that in the Jesus stories, as found in the Gospels, Jesus claimed he would be killed by MEN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr 9:31

-
For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

And Jesus will descibed the MEN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 10.33-34

33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: 34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

The Jesus in the Pauline letters is the very same Jesus presented by the Church, the Gospels and the church writers.

This Jesus as found in the Pauline letters was presented as being both God and man.

Neither the Church nor church writers did ever present the Pauline writer as a heretic, and the Pauline writer claims about Jesus are consistent with the Gospel story that Jesus was the seed of David, according to the flesh, that he was betrayed in the night, was crucified, died, rose on the third day and ascended to heaven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans 1:3

- ....
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 1.1

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew 9:27

-
27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.

The Pauline story about the Last Supper is consistent with the Gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

-

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 22.17-19

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

The Pauline writer reflects similar information as found in the Jesus stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 15.3-7

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr 9:31

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

It is patently obvious that the Jesus in the Pauline letters was presented as the very Jesus, the God/man, of the Gospels.

John Kesler · 06-27-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

So I'm posing the question: What do we make of Paul's silence?

Nick, four years ago I posed this very question on Jim West's discussion board. I hope that you find the posts beneficial.

Steven Carr · 06-27-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

So I'm posing the question: What do we make of Paul's silence?

Nick, four years ago I posed this very question on Jim West's discussion board. I hope that you find the posts beneficial.

Did Jim West really pull the old 'Paul's readers knew all about Jesus already' line?

Which is (a) unevidenced and (b) irrelevant as rumours must have been abounding, in which case Paul would have tried to quash some of them.

But the only thing about Jesus Paul quashes seems to be people preaching other than a crucified Jesus.

And did Paul's readers know all about Simon of Cyrene, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, Martha, the other Mary etc etc

Amaleq13 · 06-27-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Paul not only is silent about the Earthly life of Jesus, he's also silent about Jesus having any disciples. That should be an even bigger red flag than simply Paul's silence about Jesus, since Paul is supposedly interacting with these "disciples" in his letters. He only calls them apostles. Not only does Paul not refer to Jesus' teachings, none of these apostles do either.

So this silence can be explained by (IMO) three options:

1. Jesus didn't exist on Earth.
2. Jesus was simply a pious hermit who didn't preach or do any miracles (similar to James the Just).
3. Jesus was an insurrectionist so his Earthly life was hush-hush.

I think you missed one:

4. Paul was entirely focused on his revealed Christ and rejected the disciples' emphasis on the living man. In addition, any reference suggesting a greater connection would necessarily weaken his argument for equal authority.

Huon · 06-27-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

So I'm posing the question: What do we make of Paul's silence?

Nick, four years ago I posed this very question on Jim West's discussion board. I hope that you find the posts beneficial.

In this thread i found this

Quote:

Paul's silence about Jesus can be explained in two different ways.

1 - One can say that Paul's audience knew all the facts about Jesus. So he did not feel the need to repeat this knowledge.

2 - The second explanation is that Paul's knowledge of the historical Jesus was very poor indeed.

I find the first explanation highly improbable. When Paul is addressing communities he had evangelized, we can hardly assume that his "churches" knew anything about the historical Jesus from other sources. Besides, when he feels the need to remind his readers of what he had told them about Jesus, he does not hesitate to do so (cf. 1 Corinthians 15).

This leaves me with the second explanation. I think that the knowledge of the historical Jesus is not necessary for the Easter faith. One can be a great Apostle and yet have a very poor knowledge of the pre-Easter story. I would even say that the least one knows about the historical Jesus, the more easily one adheres to the Easter revelation. A great thinker like Paul, because he knew almost nothing about Jesus' activity and ideas, felt free to elaborate his own theology on the basis of his personal religious speculation. Had the gospels never seen the light, the Christian faith as Paul had elaborated it would have avoided all the Christological problems that had to be addressed by the ecumenical councils. It is the association of the historical Jesus with the Christ of the Easter faith that is responsible for all past and present problems.

The modern quest for the historical Jesus would have been pointless, if all we knew about him had been limited to what Paul had known.
What pertains to the historical Jesus is of no interest to Paul the theologian. 2 Corinthians 5:16 goes in this direction. What Paul is interested in is the spiritual not the physical reality (the Easter faith in all its purity). This attitude allows him to sail through the Easter logic without any problems. In comparison, the project of writing a gospel is much more problematic, especially if the historical Jesus had known nothing about the Easter revelation, which was going to make of him the resurrected Christ and the Son of God made man.

This is the real problem. Either we assume that the historical Jesus was indeed what the Easter faith showed him to be, or we assume that the Easter faith made of him, after his death, what he was not before. For the Christian faith, the second possibility is unacceptable. And here is precisely where the exegetical problem lies.

If we assume that the historical Jesus was what the Easter faith showed him to be, then we cannot see why the gospels manipulate the facts and invent many events. But if we assume that the Easter faith made of him, after his death, what he was not before, then we can understand why the gospels manipulate the events. The manipulation of the events was necessary in order to cover up the discrepancy between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the Easter faith.

Joseph Codsy, Beirut, Lebanon

Toto · 06-27-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...
Neither the Church nor church writers did ever present the Pauline writer as a heretic ....

Tertullian called Saint Paul "the apostle of the heretics."

aa5874 · 06-27-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Nick, four years ago I posed this very question on Jim West's discussion board. I hope that you find the posts beneficial.

Did Jim West really pull the old 'Paul's readers knew all about Jesus already' line?

Which is (a) unevidenced and (b) irrelevant as rumours must have been abounding, in which case Paul would have tried to quash some of them.

But the only thing about Jesus Paul quashes seems to be people preaching other than a crucified Jesus.

And did Paul's readers know all about Simon of Cyrene, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, Martha, the other Mary etc etc

There are 21 epistles in the NT, supposedly authored by apostles and even relatives of Jesus, and none of them, even though some have been considered to have been written after the Gospels, contain any information about Simon of Cyrene, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, Martha, the other Mary etc etc.

Based on the information from the NT, and church writings, the writer Paul became familiar with Jesus after he had ascended to heaven and got certain information from the ascended Jesus about events that occurred while the God/man was on earth.

The writer Paul made no claim in the epistles that he saw Jesus before he died.

The writer Paul claimed he saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

[b] Paul saw Jesus in a non-historical state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 15.3-8

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 4and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

5and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

The writer Paul only heard from and saw Jesus in a non-historical state.

But, oddly enough it was the non-historical Jesus from heaven who gave Paul the history of Jesus while on earth.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-27-2009, 05:52 AM	#12
Switch89 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montgomery, AL Posts: 453	@ aa, 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 doesn't say too much, and could easily be interpreted as a mythical scene which was given to Paul or to some other early Christian as a vision. In 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, the word Archaeon (translated as 'rulers of this world' or in your case, princes) can also mean demonic rulers. As for 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Christ could have died in the heavenly (or "New") Jerusalem rather than on earth. In fact, the book of Hebrews envisions Christ making his sacrafice in the Heavenly sanctuary. Also, allow me to point out that 1 Corinthians 15 says that Jesus died "according to the scriptures" why would Paul have been referring to scriptures when Jesus' death would have been a fact witnessed and attested to by lots of early Christians?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.