Toto

1 Corinthians 7 ... It is good for a man not to marry.

One would expect Paul to write either It is good for a man not to marry, as Jesus was not married; of It is good for a man not to marry, although Jesus was married ...


This test is not going to be very useful if it just confirms your preexisting views.

In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul writes at length about how preachers ought to be paid. But there's nothing there about whether Jesus was paid for his preaching. How did Jesus support himself? If Jesus was supported by those he preached to, why does Paul not use that as an example? This argues against Paul thinking of Jesus as a preacher.

Toto

So far, I have put almost no energy into this other than a few key word searches at Biblegateway.com, and TedM's case for Paul knowing a historical Jesus fails.

Good night, TedM.

TedM

I'll try one last time with part of what you wrote, and that will be the end of it:

Why don't you just answer the question spin? Your answer is not helpful. It implies that you do not think we can conclude that Paul's Jesus was not a preacher, because we can't test Paul. I am not testing Paul Spin. I am testing my assumptions against Paul's writings.


It was an example to make my point. :huh:

I never did that. Why are you concluding that I did is beyond me..

You keep putting Paul on trial here. Certainly he will need to be examined but you have missed the point entirely. Woooshh right over your head. This is about looking for what we should expect to find within the writings we have of Paul with regard to the type of minimal Jesus assumed in the OP. And, it is about finding references within Paul that are evidence against such a minimal Jesus.

TedM

No need to be condescending Toto. I'll look at your example on marriage tomorrow.

Toto

Paul in fact did.

1 Corinthians 7

Marriage

1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2B ut since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

So Paul wishes that all men were unmarried as he is, using himself and not Jesus as an example.

TedM

Yes, I caught my error and changed it nearly immediately but I guess you saw my mistake before I did so.

Ok, I probably should wait until tomorrow but here is my reply:


First, I assume Paul would have known the minimal Jesus' marital status.

Second, Paul is answering questions the Corinthians had given him. It becomes clear later in the chapter that an issue of great concern to Paul was the nearing of the end of times, and that this figured into Paul's recommendation--ie since the end of time was near it would be better not to marry. He literally says this:

It well may have been that one of the questions Paul was answering was: Since the end times are near, should people marry? If so, Jesus' own marital status would perhaps have been less a consideration than the impending coming of the kingdom of God.

Given this context there is a reasonable case to be made for Jesus' own personal marital status to be somewhat irrelevant to the Corinthians to which Paul was writing.

That being said,
If Jesus was not married, it would have bolstered Paul's case to mention this as a preferable way to live, and an example that he himself had followed.


If Jesus was married, I would not have a great expectation for Paul to have said "although Jesus was married"--as you suggested, because it hurts his point that it is better to not be married. Further, it would have worked against the idea of withholding marriage because of the end times, since Jesus himself should have done so for himself.

My conclusion is that there is one scenario in which it is quite reasonable for Paul to not have mentioned Jesus' marital status:

Jesus had been married and Paul was focused on the issue of marriage in light of the expectation that the kingdom of God was very near.

Since it is actually very reasonable to assume that Jesus was married and the context strongly supports the solicitation of marital advice in light of the expectation of the end times being near, it would be a mistake to have a strong expectation for Paul to have mentioned Jesus' marital status.

Toto

So now you've just proven to yourself that Jesus was married, throwing over centuries of Christian tradition.

I still don't see it. If Jesus was married, why does Paul not use him as an example for how married people are to behave, in the following passages of 1 Cor 7? Are you now going to conclude that Jesus must have been a neglectful or abusive husband, otherwise Paul would have told people to respect their wives and husbands as Jesus did his wife?

spin

Unless Paul deals with whatever the fuck you are trying to test, you wan't test anything against Paul's writings.

Your point is between the parentheses ( ).

One looks for sense even where there might not be any.

Not Paul. You.

Assume whatever you like there, TedM. Your conclusions will be based on your starting presuppositions, presuppositions that you cannot delve into. You seem to be running a lot but never quite catching your tail.

If Paul provides the earliest material you have, you start with what he says, as there is nothing earlier. What you are doing obviously comes from sources that post-date Paul, so the process you are attempting is anachronous and has no way to relate to what Paul knew. Anything that you say regarding your minimal historical Jesus beyond the fact that Paul thought him a man, that Paul thought him crucified and that Paul believed he was resurrected, seems to be a waste of breath.


spin

TedM

I already said this minimal Jesus didn't perform miracles, so why should this be noteworthy on that point?

I haven't proven this to myself. Just that it is perhaps the most reasonable scenario and that it is reasonable enough to not expect such a mention. I am curious whether you would agree with my conclusions or not, and why. Care to comment?

I do think that it is not unreasonable for Paul to have been silent on the matter if he was focused on the end-times issue, even if Jesus was not married. I think silence would have been more reasonable had Jesus been married than non-married.


I don't see a passage where this should be expected. I would not expect Paul to use Jesus as an example for someone who didn't get divorce, nor as an example of someone who married in order to control his sexual needs.

This is my viewpoint, and I don't think I'm being inflexible. However, others--and you--can chime in if they do think it is.

TedM

Toto has already shown that he DOES deal with issues that are relevant to a minimal Jesus. The question in each and every case will be whether his manner of dealing with them raises the expectation that he deal with the minimal Jesus in the same context--ie whether the minimal Jesus is highly relevant to the issues he discusses.
I don't think you are thinking this through very well. I'm testing a hypothesis against Paul's writings. Paul's writings can help confirm or deny the hypothesis. It's not complicated, but you seem to be making it so and here's a perfect example of that:

1. It doesn't matter where my minimal Jesus came from. It is irrelevant.
2. If all we can conclude is that Paul's Jesus could have been a man who was crucified and believed resurrected and this is not contradictory to my minimal Jesus, we can conclude that the minimal Jesus I have proposed is consistent with Pauls' writings.
However, there are passages that could be seen to relate to my minimal Jesus' LIFE and personhood that could cast doubt on his existence--the preaching aspect, the marriage aspect, perhaps a Doherty-style Jesus aspect, etc. It is THOSE passages that could make this exercise NOT a waste of breath.

IF it turns out to be a waste of breath than we might have to conclude that my minimal Jesus is just as well supported as Doherty's Jesus in the sky hypothesis, and it would be high time to give it equal respect or disrespect. Maybe things have changed but in the past the Doherty Jesus seemed to be embraced by the skeptics while my minimal Jesus type was only embraced by a few skeptics. I'm trying to figure out whether that is because the skeptics are letting their own biases guide their conclusions OR whether there are more problems with my hypothesis than there are even with Doherty's hypothesis.