TedM

Citations from Paul's "authentic" epistles, 1 John, 1 Peter, the Didache, Hebrews, and 1 Clement that relate or seem to relate to a historical Jesus (ie a Jesus on earth in the past) can be found at the bottom of the page here, for those interested:

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...op20/id24.html

These writings are the ones Mr. Doherty draws from in his Top 20 silences of a historical Jesus. There are, of course, plenty of other references found in other fairly early writings (various gospels), and in writings that have much Pauline thought (the pastorals), but I've not included those.

In addition, I've added additional information on the page for #13 Judas the Betrayor, for why we shouldn't have a high expectation for the authors of Hebrews or 1 Clement to have mentioned Judas.

ted

Clivedurdle

Let's try a bit of Bible Study! Turn to Phillipians 2 everybody!

Paul here seems very unclear about Jesus - "fashion of man". He is also unclear about what the gospel is - "work out your own salvation."

"Wherefore God hath also highly exalted and given him a name" - after his death mind - and no mention of a resurrection - so when was Jesus made equal to God?

There is in this little passage a myriad heresies and doctrinal disputes. The myth position actually explains why there are so many divergent views - because it is reinterpretations by other people of other people's stories. Btw, I thought Paul received the instructions about the Lord's Supper from the Lord - whoever that is - ie in a vision. Not exactly a reliable source of evidence! The concept of Jesus being in one of the levels of heaven, where all this is enacted, actually makes far better sense!

I would also be very careful about the twelve - I think there is a direct relationship with the minor prophets.

Try rereading Paul and Hebrews imagining the levels of heaven and something being worked out in the celestial spheres! Add in some philosophy and morality then extant, plus a clear passion play in the Gospels.

GakuseiDon

No, it actually doesn't, if we try to make sense of it according to what we know of the Middle-Platonic beliefs of the time.

What level of heaven was Jesus crucified in, IYO?

TedM

My purpose wasn't to debate Phillipians, but to let people know of the citations that one MIGHT use to support a historical Jesus. However, I'll respond to a few points you made:

If Paul believed God became man, such a statement wouldn't be unusual.


This is an example of overanalyzing IMO. Paul speaks of the resurrection dozens of times.

Divergent views can also be explained by a historical Jesus who didn't stay on earth to lead Israel as it's king. Note that the early citations present a fairly consistent portrayal of Jesus--from the books Doherty himself relies upon. I haven't looked into the Book of Enoch or the Odes of Soloman, or the Shephard of Hermas, but the Ascention of Isaiah discussion recently convinced me that it is too convuluted to conclude a radically different portrayal of Jesus.



It's debatable, but it is clear that the "Lord" is referring to Jesus. "Apo" would be the right word for Paul to use to refer to Jesus as being the original source of the story--whether that through in a vision (one unlike anything Paul ever describes elsewhere) or through the testimony of others about a historical event.

Sounds like numerology--what is the relationship you see?

I suppose one could piece together an alternative, but one has to reinterpret the many citations I gave in what to me is a very unstraightforward manner. Echoing sentiments on another board, I'd like to see a presentation of this thesis in a scholarly, academic journal.

ted

Amaleq13

We discussed this in an earlier thread and you quoted Holding on 'apo':

"While most scholars since the ICC have not been so bold as to engage the "battle of the prepositions" so directly - preferring instead to say that the use of apo neither proves nor disproves our argument..."

I realize you tend to accept Holding's opinion which followed but his description of what "most scholars" say on the subject clearly precludes attributing significance (ie "right word") to it.

TedM

Maybe my memory is getting fogged but I thought that IF there were to be a 'right' word for an indirect source, 'apo' would be it, and the alternative word would not.

Amaleq13

You are trying to use the word as support when, according to Holding, "most scholars" think it cannot be used to support either view as more likely.

TedM

"Attributing significance" is different than claiminng proof, which is what Holding says can't be done on this basis. Note too that I originally didn't say that it makes the HJ more likely than a vision. Here's what I said:

I said it was appropriate for either situation. My understanding is that it can mean both "indirect" and "distant"--like in a vision of some kind.

My response to you may have been unintentionally misleading:

By "indirect" I also am including a visionary experience. IOW, the other word if I recall correctly is ONLY used when person X directly reports to person Y. 'Apo' would not be used in this case. However, that still doesn't mean that in this case its use favors a visionary experience over an indirect/second-hand-type of source.

Here's what Strong has for 'apo':
By the way, here's the full quote. You apparantly deliberately lopped of the last part, which I've bolded:
The source for those that want to read Holding's analysis of Doherty's position: http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doh...e.html#lastsup

ted

Amaleq13

Ted, this is silly. According to Holding, your source in the previous discussion, "most scholars" do not consider the use of the word to be supportive of either position. That means it is not significant as far as they are concerned. And that means it is entirely disingenuous to continue to use it as though it had significance. And that means you should drop it entirely from your argument unless you make it explicit that you are relying upon the expressed opinion of J.P. Holding.

I don't know why you have any doubts. I made it pretty clear in my first post that was not including Holding's opinion as part of my argument but I also acknowledged that you likely accepted it. I did not include it because it was irrelevant to his acknowledgment that "most scholars" don't consider it significant.

There is really no reason for this exchange to be so tedious. According to your own reference, you overstated the significance of the use of the word. As far as I can tell, you have three options:

1) Acknowledge this fact and stop appealing to evidence you know is not considered significant by "most scholars".

2) Continue to appeal to the word's significance with an explicit reference to the limited and subjective nature of your support.

3) Ignore this fact and disingenuously continue to use it as though it supported your position.

TedM

I just don't see the objection you have. What in the following argues for a HJ?:


Amaleq, I sincerely don't interpret "Bottom line: While most scholars since the ICC have not been so bold as to engage the "battle of the prepositions" so directly - preferring instead to say that the use of apo neither proves nor disproves our argument " as an indication that most scholars would agree that the use is insignificant. I don't know if they would find any significance or not. Maybe not regarding the HJ/MJ arguement (same as I), but maybe they would see the significance that I pointed out in my first post.

I don't think I've done anything disingenuous, and am a bit baffled by your claim. Let me try to clear it up again:

I didn't use apo as support for the idea that Paul got his info from Jesus second-hand, as support for the HJ concept. I do think that even though the word doesn't prove or disprove anything, as Holding's scholars suggest, there still is significance to be found by what word was used. The significance I find is that if the OTHER word had been used that would seem to be a powerful argument for a non-historical event since the implication would be that Jesus directly told Paul about the Last Supper. Is that VERY significant? I don't think so, since the event could be either HJ or visionary with the use of 'apo'.


Does that help clarify?

ted