maryhelena

Yes, pretty simple is it not. Why the historicists want to make a mountain out of a molehill beats me - what about that old chap with the razor - the simple is to be preferred to a mountain of cherry-stones....

I recently had a re-look at an old book - The Myth of God Incarnate (or via: amazon.co.uk) (edited by John Hick) - the book that helped to set me free.....well you know what I mean...

The late Michael Goulder contributed to that book - and although I don't think he ever went all the way to a mythicist position - he did shortly thereafter resign his 'orders' as he had lost his faith in god.

In one of his essays in that book Goulder tells this apocryphal anecdote:

Goulder goes on:

And this book was published in 1977. Methinks some of the historicists here would do well in considering this very important break-through book.

GakuseiDon

But what about Paul? There are passages that seem to confirm that Paul was talking about someone he considered historical. I gave these passages earlier in this thread:

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came (Romans 9:3-5)

[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)

Maryhelena asked "who knows exactly what he was trying to communicate at that historical time period", but if you want to talk about the face value, then surely the prima facie reading is pretty clear: Jesus was a descendent from the Israelites and a descendent from David. Note that Paul is also declaring that he is descendent from the Israelites.

What is the mythicist reading, and more importantly, what is the support for that reading?

GakuseiDon

spamandham, can you lay out what you regard as the best possible case for mythicism, please, so we can examine it and ask questions?

dog-on

GD, I believe that Paul has been significantly interpolated. I do not think that Paul wrote either of the passages you have quoted.

GakuseiDon

Fair enough.

dog-on

Thanks. Now regardless of this, we have another issue with Paul.

Paul, admittedly, never met Jesus.

He knows Jesus via revelation and through Scripture.

Whether or not Paul actually believed Jesus had recently been a human on earth, he is not an actual witness to it.

maryhelena

GDon, the "prima facie" 'evidence' from Paul is, as recorded in the book of Acts, that Paul had a vision from heaven, a vision about Jesus of Nazareth. That's it, that's the 'evidence'.

Now, you want to come onto a skeptic forum and ask people here to believe that vision - that Paul interpreted his vision as being related to a historical Jesus of Nazareth? Are you really serious here?

For crying out aloud - what would a historicist do today if someone came along and said their vision about a figure X was actually about a historical person X who was crucified a few years ago but was raised from the dead and is now speaking, via a vision, to them. Just what would you do? Would you not suggest that a visit to a psychiatrist might be in order...

You cannot use Paul's vision as 'evidence' for a historical Jesus - you just cannot do that. And if you cannot, logically, do that - then you cannot, logically, take anything else that Paul might say, regarding his subsequent interpretation of his vision, to have reference to a flesh and blood historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Sure, according to the dating of the gospel storyline, Paul is a late arrival on the Jesus scene - but that storyline itself, the gospel storyline re Jesus of Nazareth - or wherever - is itself a storyline that cannot be demonstrated to be historical. What we have is a mythological gospel storyline, a figurative or symbolic or allegorical account of Jesus - and then we have Paul and his vision of Jesus speaking to him from beyond the dead. And the historicist want to take all of this literally??? - or at least attempt some type of salvage operation and try and extract a human Jesus from the mythological wreck......This salvage attempt is just a last ditch effort to rescue, to resuscitate, an aging idea that is long past its glory days.

So, as I said earlier - take a trip with Paul by all means - enjoy the theological side-show - but don't expect that the theological highroad will take you to a historical core to the gospel storyline. That journey follows the low road...

GakuseiDon

But Acts is about Paul's vision of the resurrected Jesus. What has this to do with Paul's Jesus being a descendent of the Israelites?

There is a consistency in Paul, where the pre-resurrected Jesus appears to be in the flesh, while the resurrected Jesus becomes a "quickening spirit". Paul actually says that, in the reference I give above. Act's Jesus was seen by Act's Paul as a spirit rather than in the flesh.

At the least, we could say that that person seemed convinced that person X was historical. Can we say that Paul -- despite his psychological issues -- at least appears to have believed that Jesus was historical (regardless of the source of information)?

So, Paul's comments about Jesus being of the Israelites according to the flesh, was information coming from a vision?

GakuseiDon

Well, if Paul has been significantly interpolated, then isn't it possible that Paul met Jesus, stayed with him for a few years, and married his sister? But it was all removed for some reason?

dog-on

We have evidence showing disagreement as to what Paul supposedly wrote. So my position is not unevidenced.

We do not, however, have any reference to Paul marrying Jesus' sister, of course there is nothing impossible about that, it is just not part of the evidence.