Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
10-09-2010, 07:27 AM | #51 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
Quote:
It probably would be, if we could disregard everything else Paul ever wrote about Jesus. |
|
10-09-2010, 07:29 AM | #52 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
|
10-09-2010, 07:31 AM | #53 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
|
Quote:
Otherwise, we must suppose that contrary to other evidence in the Epistles, he was actually contemporary with (what we as historical investigators must suppose to have been a human) Jesus and was witness to the events. (Note: of course even if he got this bit of info from his visionary Jesus, that doesn't rule out that there was a historical Jesus, it just means that this little nugget isn't strong evidence for a historical Jesus.) |
|
10-09-2010, 07:48 AM | #54 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now of course, on an HJ hypothesis, there are all sorts of reasons why he might be silent - but what reason do we have to support an HJ hypothesis at this point? Suppose there was a historical mention in other (non-Christian) sources of a preacher of the relevant name with some echoes of the gospel biography. Then, yes, of course, then it would be quite a viable move to introduce the gospels as roughly contemporary sources. There would be enough similarities in the stories to make it very plausible to triangulate at that point. But we don't have anything from that time that would suggest that: not only that, but part of what has to be explained is the "silence" in Paul! Better to just take Paul as he comes, and then take the gospels as they come, to see what shakes out. And in Paul, as he comes, because there's no other mention of a human Jesus, why should we suddenly interpret roughly-contemporaneous-human-siblinghood in this passage, when elsewhere, in Paul as he comes, there's no reason to suppose he's talking about an ordinary human being at all, and he uses the term in question to refer to some class in a taxonomy of believers? |
||
10-09-2010, 08:18 AM | #55 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Quote:
We also have very good evidence that any tradition of the Last Supper as an historical event was unknown in any other community outside Paul's own mind. It is notably missing in Hebrews 7:1-3 and 9:19-20, Didache 10 and 1 Clement 41, in all of which passages we would have every right to expect that the writer would not have passed up referring to Jesus' establishment of the eucharist. All other documents before the Gospels came along are also silent on any mention of an historical Last Supper. The cult of Mithras had a myth of a sacred meal which was attended solely by mythical characters such as Mithras and Helios, with no earthly figures in attendance. And what do we find in Paul's "Lord's Supper" scene? No mention, unlike the Gospels, of "disciples" in attendance whom the Lord is addressing. Would you like to actually comment on these observations, Steve, perhaps even counter them in some substantive and insightful way? Or do you just ignore anything that doesn't agree with your a priori preconceptions? Earl Doherty |
||
10-09-2010, 12:45 PM | #56 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
In discussing the common interpretation of "James the brother of the lord" (Gal 1:19), which says that because the gospels mention that Jesus has a brother called James, James the brother of the lord is obviously the brother of Jesus, I wrote the following, which doesn't actually parse my reading, as though something went wrong in the editing process. I'll try to correct it here.
Quote:
Retrojecting later ideas into an earlier text doesn't tell you about the earlier text, just about how later people thought about it. spin |
||
10-10-2010, 09:47 PM | #57 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
Quote:
Paul explicitly tells us that there are those who are considered brothers of the Son because they are conformed to his likeness. We can either presume that Paul is referring to blood relationships in exactly 2 cases and not in hundreds of other cases, or we can conclude that even in these two cases, he is *not* usign brother literally, but is instead referring to people who satisfy the criterion of Romans 8:29. Is there anything in 1 Cor. 9 that might suggest this? It turns out there is. Here is the context of 1 Cor 9:5. What on earth is Paul talkign about when he asks "am I not free"? In Paul's theology, he is free because he is the spiritual son of the free woman.
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|