Clivedurdle

Does Paul mention Pilate?

I thought there was doubt about Paul's Jewish or Pharisaic credentials.

We haven't got anywhere near dating this stuff, except second century CE looks more and more probable. The earliest evidence of xianity seems to be well after Nero.

andrewcriddle

IMO trying to persuade other Jews that someone crucified by the Romans at the request of the Jewish authorities was in fact the promised Messiah, would have annoyed the Jewish authorities no end.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Because the Gospel story is a myth?

We shouldn't even try to reconcile the minimal Gospel claim that the living Jesus was a teacher? Why not?

Based on Philippians 2, it is most likely the risen Christ. Whether it is a direct revelation or something Paul has extrapolated from his other beliefs, I don't know.

I'm sure it would. It is unfortunate, however, that we have no reason to think that Paul or the Christian before him were doing this.

Is there anything in the allegedly pre-Pauline material Paul provides that seems like it would have motivated persecution?

TedM

Based on your Alaskan example, I'm not so sure how this would work for you. Back to the Alaskan example: Let's say the following is true about people in Alaska:

1. 65% voted for Bush
2. 20% of college students voted for Bush
3. 30% of college students named Gerald voted for Bush
4. 15% of college students named Gerald who spend a minimum of 20 min a day on the internet voted for Bush
5. 100% of college students named Gerald who spend a minumum of 20 min a day on the internet and who have been to the infidel.org site voted for Bush

Let's say that we are interested in determining if someone named Gerald, who was a college student, who spends a min of 20 min a day on the internet and who have been to the infidel.org site voted for Bush.

What we see from the above is that we can't apply probability at all acurrately in the case of this person until we know all of the specific factors in #5. One would think that the more specific the information, the more accurate the probability. The above shows that isn't true in this particular case. The probabilities were jumping all over the place as more specific information was gathered: from 65 to 20 up to 30, back down to 15, then all the way up to 100%.

Until the probablity reached 100%, which is pretty much the equivalent to saying until the hypothesis is proven, the available information led to incorrect conclusions for one that relied on probability knowing factors 2,3, and 4. If one relied on #1 only, he would be correct. But as we see from 2,3, and 4, it was pure luck that he would be correct.

This example argues that probability when applied to any individual is of no value until the factors are specific enough to conclude with 100% certainty.
This argues against using probablity at all then because the results could be way, way off.

But the reality is that if we don't know with 100% certainly and we want to tilt the odds of a successful guess in our favor, the probabilty of an eventgiven what we do know is what is used. If all I know is that a given individual lives in Alaska, then 65% of the time I would be correct by saying a particular individual with the known specific information voted for Bush. Another way of saying that is "there is a 65% probability that a particular individual voted for Bush", in the absence of further specific information. It's a terrible way of saying it. The truth is that there is either a 100% chance that a person voted for Bush or 100% chance that they voted against Bush. But that is the language often used.

It's not exact and would be wrong 35% of the time because of the specific information I don't know about that particular individual, but it is the best I can do if not 100% certain. And, the odds are in my favor of being correct, given what I know.

I"m not sure if this is helpful, but I"m attempting to show by the above example that if one doesn't know something to be 100% certain and proved but one still wants to make a decision that is most likely to be correct, one must resort to using probabilities based on the most relavent information known. Sometimes the more specific the information, the LESS accurate the use of probabilities is (#4 is wrong twice more often as number 3), but that is just the way it works. If one is going to try and make a reasonable guess, using probabilities based on knowns statistics is the only game in town that I know of.


Applying this to the example of 11:23, here is a somewhat analogous approach, (numbers made up):

1. 60% of the time 'apo' is used it refers to an indirect source
2. 80% of the time Paul uses 'apo' it refers to a direct source.

If #2 was known, I'd agree that chances are that 11:23 is not a retrojection, although it is still a possibility with a 20% likelihood. However, if we can conclude that we don't know how Paul uses it, I'd still say that based on what we do know there is a 60% chance that Paul for retrojection on the basis of the general use of 'apo'. 60% of the time I'd be correct for any individual. Based on what we know there is a 40% chance I'd be wrong. Any new information about Paul could reveal that in truth 60% and 40% are not anywhere close to the accurate 100 or 0% realities.

It's simply the best one can do, although it may not be anywhere close to the true answer. Until we know with 100% accuracy that is always going to be the case. That's the key point I think I'm realizing here. More information doesn't always point us in the right direction, but what else is one to do?

One can either

1. play the odds and be right the same % of the time as the stats are correct knowing that for any given individual the stats could be greatly misleading,
2. be agnostic and say I just don't know so I won't have any opinion at all
3. be atheistic and say that Paul does not retroject in 11:23 because I don't know specifically how he uses 'apo' (ie the evidence isn't 100% certain)
4. be dogmatic and say that Paul does retroject in 11:23 because I know with 100% certainty that others use 'apo' that way.

I like #2 as most honest, but prefer #1 because I like to have an opinion and it is the only game in town. I object to #4 because it is not rational to project onto Paul the certainty that only some others demonstrate. And I object to #3 because I don't see a lack of positive evidence as providing enough information to conclude against a known possibility (ie 'apo' could mean indirect).



I can see that interpretation. It would work if the passage said "he who raised Jesus as the Lord Jesus", but the most literal reading is the "God raised the Lord Jesus". God didn't raise the Lord. He raised Jesus. Lord is what Jesus was then called. It leans more toward retrojection in my book.



I agree.

Ok. That seems reasonable to me.

ted

TedM

I tried to indicate that this is too broad. I would say that Paul does not credit Jesus for revealing that Gentiles can be saved through faith and not adherance to Jewish laws. That is Paul's mystery. I'm not sure we find such teachings by Jesus in the synoptics, so I argue against the expectation for finding such a teaching by Jesus in Paul's writings. The Gospel of John is another story. Either Paul is strangely silent on the teachings there, I misunderstand how they are applied in GJohn, or GJohn is not reflecting true teachings of Jesus but later thought.

I think I addressed that and disagreed by saying that Paul did give an example of Jesus not pleasing himself but God through suffering and death through being nailed on a cross, hung from a tree. This points to his belief in a HJ.

ted

Amaleq13

The above doesn't show anything because the numbers are made up. The probabilities jumped around because you made them jump around. There is really no question that the more specific your information, the more accurate will be your predictions based on that information. Your last statistic reflects this correctly. Given sufficient information, your prediction is 100%.

To create a real version of what you attempted, you would need polls that increasingly focused on factors relevant to me since that was the point of my example. Each time you added a polling factor that applied to me, your chances of correctly guessing my vote would increase. The more you know about how people very much like me voted, the more likely you are to guess my vote.

The more you know about how people like Paul chose to use the word, the more likely you are to correctly guess his intent. You are currently relying on the most general statistic available but that is the most unreliable basis for a guess about a specific individual. I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

No, it argues against using a general statistic about a group to make specific predictions about an individual.

You are willing to risk the unreliability for no other reason than it supports the conclusion you prefer. I simply need a better reason than that to ignore the lack of reliability. Actual numbers would also be welcome.

I'm not asking for 100% certainty. I'm asking for a more reliable basis for guessing what Paul intended. The more the general population under consideration is like Paul, the more reliable the guess. Right now, we don't even have real numbers with which to work but, even if we did, we are working with the most general statistic possible.

Where do you get this? Sounds more like the Gospels than Paul. Are you imagining some sort of journey by the risen Christ "up" into heaven to be declared "Lord"? Where do you find this suggested by Paul? It seems to me that asserting Christ was raised was the same thing to Paul as asserting Christ was back in heaven with God. Then he appeared to the apostles so they would know what happened.

TedM

I don't think that matters, if the numbers can be made to work. And they can. Say there are 20 college students named Gerard in Alaska who voted for Bush. The numbers work if 3 of those use the internet 20 min a day (15%), and 1 of those has been to infidels.org.

I showed that this is not always true because the quality of the specificity varies. In my example being a college student decreased the odds of voting for Bush, being named Gerard increased the odds, being on the internet 20 min a day again decreased the odds, and being on infidels.org increased them again. All of these applied to the same person but more specificity didn't correlate with more accurate predictors. This concept is not unrealistic. Many factors go into a persons decision. In this case the factor for Gerard that made the most difference could have been a conversation he had had with someone on infidels.org!

My example shows that NO increase in specifity of information is sufficient until it is proven. Until then the most important factor(s) may not be reflected in the probability used.


Nope. It seems like it would but again the most important factor may completely reverse the effects of the other factors. Had Gerard never visitied infidels.org he would have been very likely to NOT vote for Bush.

Again, it sounds true, but it isn't always. It depends on whether I know the factors that affect your own decision making or not.


I've shown why that is not a given. In my example knowing only that Gerard was a citizen of Alaska was a lot more reliable than knowing factors 2,3,&4 for Gerard. The key is what factors influence Gerard the most.

if all we know about Paul is that he uses 'apo' and 99.99999% of the general uses of 'apo' mean an 'indirect source' the general statistic is useful information and chances are quite strong that relying on it would yield the right information about Paul specifically, even though he could be that 1 in a billion or so that uses it differently.


That's what I meant. However, all 5 factors in my example were specific to Gerard, even though they were also generalizations. So really there is no distinction. That's a key point I think you are missing that I just realized myself. The fact that Paul used 'apo' means that the general use of 'apo' by others IS specific to Paul also, since he was a user of that word. To exclude Paul from that group makes no sense when one considers that the general use could have been one way only 99.9999% of the time. In such a case it is clear that the general use is 'specific to Paul' until we know otherwise.


You will always have unreliability when you use statistics because they can't get into the mind of the individual you are interested in. Paul could use 'apo' one way on one circumstance and another way in other circumstances. There is always an unknown factor specific to Paul. Probability can't predict or identify those unknown factors. All probability can do is determine what Paul would do if he followed the norms that are known for people that do the same things as Paul does with regard to the factors we DO know about.


I"ve shown that your last sentence is not always correct, although intuitively it sounds right. You can be 99% like Paul but that 1% difference that is unkown can make ALL the difference in the event in question.



Sorry I was referring to the incarnation as Jesus. Let me rephrase: I can see that interpretation. It would work if the passage said "he who raised the incarnation as the Lord Jesus", but the most literal reading is the "God raised the Lord Jesus". God didn't raise the Lord. He raised the incarnation. Lord is what the incarnation was then called. It leans more toward retrojection in my book. "Raised" does seem to imply a journey but even if it doesn't it would at least mean something like 'brought back to life' or 'transformed into a new life'. Those meanings would seem to support the idea that the incarnation was transformed into the Lord.

ted

S.C.Carlson

It almost sounds like you're discussing Bayes Theorem.

TedM

It's been 15 years since I've had any statistics, and I don't remember much of it so I wouldn't know if I'm discussing Bayes Theorem or not! If I'm looking at it wrong I'd be happy for someone to set me straight.

ted

Amaleq13

Why it clearly does matter is contained in your sentence (ie "can be made to work"). You are fabricating the results you are arguing can be obtained. It works because you make it work. It doesn't get much more circular than that, Ted.

You didn't show anything because, for one thing, you chose a ridiculously specific basis for a poll (eg people named "Gerard") which has no meaningful relationship to vote choice. The point of increasing specificity is adding factors that are relevant to the decision being predicted. You added at least one factor that was not and that is what skewed your results.

Including their name, Ted? I don't think so.

I can't believe you really think your fabricated poll means anything. Try it with relevant questions and real numbers.

Actually, unless and until we obtain numbers to describe common/uncommon usage of 'apo', this is all just theoretical. I think it is important to remember that, despite all the numbers (real and imagined) being thrown around here, we really have no idea what is meant by "common" with regard to the use of 'apo' nor even what the source is for the judgment.

Is the choice of meaning related to education? Is the choice related to where the writer lived or grew up?

What we know tells us so little but your conclusion requires that we assume it tells us much.

But they weren't all relevant to vote choice. You basically lumped in a bunch of fabricated numbers and pretended they were all relevant to predicting the outcome. This is just too bizarre.

That is playing a bit fast and loose with the definition of "specific", I think. Is there a more general statistic possible? I can't think of one.

I'm not excluding him. I'm saying the broad categories (common/uncommon) are too non-specific to be useful for accurately predicting the behavior of a specific individual.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't think there is any basis for this to be found in Paul and, in fact, ample evidence that he considered the entity raised to be fundamentally and significantly different from the incarnation that died. Paul describes resurrection as involving a complete transformation of the individual.

No, "Lord" is what the risen Christ was called and the risen Christ was a fundamentally different form of existence than the incarnation. Paul says flesh can't enter heaven but appearing as flesh is what the incarnation was all about. The incarnation was never called "Lord" according to Philippians 2.

Exactly but continuing to regard the transformed risen Christ as still somehow the incarnation denies the transformation. The resurrection was that transformation. The incarnated form was either left behind or completely replaced.