Didymus

Paul didn't explicitly say he hadn't met the historical Jesus; nor did he say that anyone of his acquaintance had or had not done so.

In 1 Cor 15 Paul tells us that Cephas, the Twelve and more than 500 others had visions of the Risen Christ before "last of all, as by one born out of due time, he was seen also by me." But that's a far cry from meeting the historical Jesus. He's complaining that he came late to the visionary game, but he never expressed disappointment at not having met Jesus during Jesus' earthly ministry.

On a related subject, it's interesting to note that he makes no mention of the Twelve or the Pillars being present at the eucharistic injunction. At one point Jesus addresses the imputed "guests" as "my brethren," but that's the extent of it.

If Paul had plainly said that he had not met the historical Jesus, that would have implied belief in such a Jesus, and the HJ vs. MJ debate would be a much different animal.

Didymus

Didymus

("See here" is a link to a message from Ben Smith entitled "Paul and his older contemporary, Jesus.")

Ben began by pointing out that Paul said Jesus lived after Adam, Moses, Abraham and David. That would put Jesus on earth, alright. (See Doherty for another view.) But, as Ben acknowledges implicitly, none of that places Jesus in recent history.

Ben also said, as evidence that Paul regarded Jesus as having lived recently, that Paul claims to have had dealings with the "brother of the Lord," James. But, as has been much discussed in this forum, the term is ambiguous. Catholics insist it could have meant "cousin," and elsewhere in the NT the terms "brother" and "brethren" are used to mean a variety of things, including apostle, disciple and believer. Actually I think that's the best evidence you've got for Paul's regarding Jesus as having lived in recent history, but it's awfully thin. Flimsy, even.

Paul does not state unequivocally, or even equivocally, that the Resurrection signaled the Parousia, or even that the Parousia had begun. But assuming that Paul did believe that it had begun (an exegetical question that I'm not prepared to debate), it is entirely plausible that he thought the Resurrection had been "in the wings" all along, a potential just waiting to be invoked by the Risen Christ whose series of astonishing appearances told of the Crucifixion and announced the end times.

Same as previous. Paul made no definitive statement that Jesus' resurrection proclaimed the immediate beginning of the Parousia.

The only gap that Paul specifies is the three days between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Paul does not specify the interval between the (a) Resurrection and (b) Jesus' more or less contemporary appearance to Cephas, the Twelve, the mysterious 500, James, all the apostles (?) and, at long last, to poor hardworking Paul himself.

Thus, we see the appearances serving as the precipitate cause of earthly events. Why couldn't he have believed that the appearances also signaled the beginning of the General Resurrection?

The same question can be applied to the Incarnation itself. Why did God wait until so long after the Creation before sending Jesus to redeem humanity?

Jesus came, was crucified, was resurrected and then, in the fullness of time, his atoning sacrifice and redemptive power was manifested through appearances of the Risen Christ. Seems eminently logical, if you believe in that sort of thing.

I don't understand how that is "easier to suppose." Most Christians today don't think the General Resurrection has begun.

In sum, Ben didn't present any conclusive evidence that Paul regarded Jesus as having lived on earth in recent times.

Didymus

Note: It's rather awkward to respond to a message that consists only of a link to a message from someone else. In any event, I'm letting Ben know about this posting so he won't be blindsided.

aa5874

The Christian Bible contains more than sufficient evidence to show the non-historicity of Jesus. The introduction of Paul as a major figure in Christianity augments the fiction of Jesus.

Paul conversion is most bizarre, bright lights, he hears an unrecognizable voice and is blinded. The voice says that it is Jesus. Not even Eve would have believed such nonsense. This same Paul writes 15 books in the New Testament, this is odd.

In any event, I will show that Jesus is fairy tale, non HJ or MJ, in Acts CH13 v8-12, Paul does the incredible, he blinds a man with the power of the Lord. Today we know that no such power exist, people cannot be blinded by prayer, it is unheard of, not even todays faith healers attempt such absurdity. The acts of Paul are those of a sorcerer or witchcraft.

Jesus was a man-made invention, Paul was made a little later.

RUmike

Hmm. Paul himself doesn't tell us any of those things.

darstec

In fact he does state exactly that and rather explicitly:
And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man,for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ

We can learn two things from this statement:
1) the anointed Joshua was not a man
2) that Paul got his gospel through inspiration/revelation.

And further bolstered by Ephesians 3:3-5 where Paul claims even the apostles received the relevations of the good news from the Holy Spirit.

And again II Corinthians 12:1 Paul claims his knowledge through visions and relevations.

Romans 16:25-26 has Paul saying the good news is from revelation and the old testament.

andrewcriddle

The Statement that Paul did not learn his Gospel Message from the Historical Jesus is distinct from the statement that Paul never met the Historical Jesus.

Eg there is nothing in the Epistles to contradict the possibility that Paul was once one of the people heckling Jesus when they both happened to be in Jerusalem at the same time.


Andrew Criddle

darstec

I do not think the statements are distinct. If Joshua were there physically and Paul were there heckling, it would have been impossible for Paul not to have heard what Joshua was saying. Thus he would have heard it from a man. The two statements are inexplicably interwined. Or else what could Paul have been heckling about?

aa5874

You probably have never read the Christian Bible's account of Paul's conversion. Read Acts ch9 for his conversion and Acts 13:11 for his acts of witchcraft.

Any how you may be absolutely correct, I really do not know if Paul really existed or not. I just hate repeating what I see in the Christian Bible, it's filled with bogus information.

andrewcriddle

If Paul was there heckling he would have heard some things which Jesus said that day eg about the moral implications of the coming kingdom of God.

This would not mean that Paul's gospel would necessarily be based upon what Jesus said about whatever subject he was discussing that day in Jerusalem.

I think we are agreed that Paul's gospel is not based upon the teaching of the historical Jesus (IMO it is quite often influenced by the teaching of the historical Jesus but that is another matter).

Unless one is claiming that the relative independence of Paul's gospel from any teaching of the historical Jesus is only possible if Paul was entirely ignorant of such teaching, then the Epistles are quite compatible with limited contact between Paul and the historical Jesus. (Such contact quite likely never happened but Paul is not explicit on the point.)

Andrew Criddle

jjramsey

Ben C. Smith did not say that Paul thought the Parousia had begun, but rather that Paul thought that the Parousia was coming soon, within either his or his followers' lifetimes, which is supported by the verses 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:51. Note Paul's use of "we" in those verses.

This sidesteps the force of Paul's firstfruits metaphor. The firstfruits are an initial harvest preceding the main larger harvest by a short time. Modern Christians can rationalize away the force of this metaphor by appealing to the Petrine epistles (i.e. a thousand years is as a day to God and vice versa), and thus having a "short time" from God's perspective. However, Paul is expecting the Parousia to occur within his lifetime, and thus doesn't see it that way.

If Paul really thought that there was long gap between the resurrection and the appearances, then we should see little hints that point in that direction. Instead, hints like the firstfruits metaphor and the "brother of the Lord" point in the other direction, and have to be explained away in order to make Paul consistent with such a long gap.