Amaleq13

The point is that the specific object is known by implication so further description is unnecessary. Likewise, if Paul is repeating a familiar belief, no further description would be necessary.

That people might say it in a casual way doesn't really correspond to how Christians would use it in a summary statement of their faith. Find an example where the speaker expects to be taken just as seriously.

I would agree that teacher is less problematic than a miracle worker but I think both are problematic when the ignorance of the 'archons' and Paul's claims that this was all a mystery until it was revealed by the Spirit are also taken into consideration.

Because that would defeat the stated purpose of appearing as a human as well as keeping the 'archons' ignorant.

The "confirming" passages don't actually mention Jesus and are thought, by some scholars to have been taken from independent Baptist texts. Regardless, all of these are understood as late developments that do not reflect the original founder. The only point being sidestepped is that there is no basis to assume this guy is the same guy Paul talks about in his letters.

Paul offers no support for the assumption so there is no basis for making it.

Nonsense. God has no quality of being able to avoid sin. God is incapable of sin.

You have yet to establish this.

A text that is recognized as at least partially forged and possibly originally an independent Jewish document offers no reliable connections.

The Gospels provide myths.

IMO, you have no basis for that assumption. Paul appears to be referring to the core teachings of his gospel and that would obviously include the incarnation. IOW, nobody knew anything about it until it was revealed later.

TedM

This is the problem. You are comingling ideas that aren't supported. The idea that the archons couldn't have crucified Jesus had he been a teacher or even a miracle worker is not supported by Paul, and is actually denied by the gospels in a way that makes sense: Anger, jealousy, and fear all can motivate people to be blind to things and act accordingly. Your idea that it doesn't make sense is flawed and Paul doesn't support it. All Paul says is that they didn't know Jesus was really the Lord. And, the idea that the mystery was who Jesus was on earth is simply wrong. The mystery was salvation for all. I plan on addressing this some other time, but encourage you to look up the passages yourself. It appears to me that you are being influenced too heavily by Doherty when making these kinds of 'considerations'.


There is basis if the Q guy was called the Son of God and refers to his own impending resurrection, as is the case. The question is whether those who deny the Q passages about a more Paul-like Jesus have anything to stand on. You have yet to establish a case for layering. It seems more likely that if the layered theory is strongly evidenced, that could be demonstrated with much less than a whole book, which according to you is what it takes, so until I get around to reading a whole book on it or it is demonstrated to be likely I will view this layered idea with suspicion.


Nor for saying Paul's description of Jesus denies the possibility for a teaching or miracle working Jesus.


There are good reasons to not be so skeptical about this book, but I don't want to go into them now.

The incarnation may be included, but the focus of these references is with Gentile conversion. Paul really isn't very mysterious about what the mystery is.

ted

Amaleq13

That isn't what I said. I said that teaching wisdom and performing miracles seems like a poor way to prevent the 'archons' from suspecting Jesus was more than he appeared.

Prove it. Where does Paul state or even imply that anyone knew the true identity of Jesus while he lived?

"but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;" (1Cor 2:7-8)

This sure looks to me like the true identity of Jesus was part of the secret, hidden wisdom of God.

That clearly isn't the whole mystery. Paul makes it clear in the passage above that the salvation would never have been possible had the true identity of Jesus been known because the 'archons' wouldn't have killed him. It is, therefore, quite clear that keeping that identity a secret was a necessary condition for the atoning sacrifice to occur. To deny that the true identity was kept secret and part of the foreordained mystery makes no sense whatsoever.

You are mistaken, this has nothing to do with Doherty. This is all about basing our conception of the HJ only on what Paul says and avoiding reading any other information about Jesus into his letters.

I can wait for you to learn more about Q. I'm fine with sticking only to what Paul says.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself on this point. Paul's description offers nothing to suggest that anyone would make this assumption. You have to obtain it elsewhere and then try to read it into Paul.

This seems like a significant retreat from your earlier assertion, oddly enough in the same post, that it is "wrong" to consider it as part of the mystery. I agree that Paul specifically focuses on Gentile conversion but I think 1Cor 2:7-8 makes it pretty clear that Jesus' true identity was part of it as well.

You earlier stated that you considered the notion of Gentile conversion to not be something we could attribute to the historical Jesus. It makes sense for Paul to call a later development a mystery that had only been revealed recently but why shouldn't we assume that is true for his entire gospel? He seems to consider the whole thing a mystery that had never been revealed until recently so why should any of it be assumed to go back to the historical Jesus? The Gentile conversion, atoning sacrifice and the necessarily hidden identity are all part of the secret, hidden wisdom of God that has only recently been revealed to the apostles.

TedM

You stated it stronger that you are now stating it. You said: "Paul's Jesus appears to exist only to be killed without his executioners knowing his true identity. As I mentioned before, any activities that might threaten that purpose make no sense and I would consider preaching or performing miracles to qualify."

If you think it 'makes no sense' to be a teacher, isn't that about the same as saying "the archons couldn't have crucified Jesus had he been a teacher or even a miracle worker".

Your 'makes no sense' comment was right after saying "Paul's Jesus appears to exist only to be killed without his executioners knowing his true identity. " I've responded by saying that there are ways in which a teaching and miracle working Jesus could get crucifed by those who didn't recognize who he was: Jealousy, anger, and fear all could have blinded them just as Mark and the others say. Therefore, we can't conclude that Paul's Jesus is a trickster who would NEVER have taught or performed miracles. I can't say this any plainer. I've agreed that (with some minor debatable exceptions) Paul doesn't talk about Jesus' teachings NOR does he say he was publically honored or followed during his life, but I don't agree that Paul represents Jesus in such a way that we can conclude that it 'makes no sense' for him to have been a teacher or miracle worker.

If you still disagree, let's just agree to have a difference of opinion and move on.


Ok, I am going to retreat a bit. Jesus true identity is part of God's mystery "foreordained before the ages". However, there is nothing in Paul's writings that indicates that this mystery could not have been solved by those that knew him on earth and therefore those that didn't know who he was were 'tricked' by a disguise that is so intentional that Jesus could not have been a teacher or miracle worker. All Paul says is that they lacked wisdom to know Jesus as Lord. He doesn't say they lacked indications in Jesus' own life.


Sure, but that doesn't mean they were tricked, just that they didn't understand. Why do people not understand things? Sometimes it is our own faults--the 'folly' of believing our own wisdom. Again, the passage doesn't say that the mystery was kept hidden from the archons.

Keeping the identity a secret from the archons puts all the blame for the crucifixion on God. Why can't it be what Paul says "they didn't understand"? Paul doesn't say they didn't understand because it was being kept a secret from them. Rather than placing our own blame, why not acknowledge Pauls' position that the blame is on those who don't believe: v 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to undestand them because they are spiritually discerned" To Paul those who don't understand or believe aren't seeking God properly.

It's frustrating that when I show similarities between Q's Jesus and Paul's Jesus, you shoot it down without any real explanation--appealing to my need to read an entire book to understand it.

I suppose we can throw in all aspects of Paul's gospel, including the identity of Jesus, as part of his mystery now revealed, but when he references this mystery it is always in a context of salvation for the Gentiles. Paul seems almost totally focused on the meaning of the cross and resurrection, and how that relates to everyone's salvation in his letters.

ted

Amaleq13

I disagree but I hope you now have a more accurate understanding of my position.

No. It is possible that the Son risked making the 'archons' suspicious but it doesn't make any sense to me.

We can't conclude Paul's Jesus didn't do a lot of thing if all we are relying upon in an absence of an explicit statement to the contrary. The fact remains that there is nothing in Paul's letters that would suggest a teaching or miracle-performing Jesus so, if we are trying to imagine the Jesus he describes, it makes no sense to include such attributes.

Move on to where? What more can be said about Paul's historical Jesus if we rely only on Paul? We can't say he was a teacher. We can't say he was a miracle performer. We can't say he did anything of noteworthy except get executed.

You seem to like to speculate on what Paul doesn't say but I'm only interested in what he does say. That is a great way to find the Jesus you want to find but a poor way to identify the Jesus Paul actually describes.

Paul says this was a mystery foreordained by God presumably before time began. Does it make sense to suggest that Paul believed the mystery could have been solved before God planned to reveal it?

If you don't recognize someone because their appearance is different from their true identity, you have been tricked. Do you think the living Jesus looked like the Heavenly Son?

Well, it was God's plan, wasn't it? OTOH, would Paul consider "blame" an appropriate word for the ultimate sacrifice that offered atonement?

That refers to those who don't believe in his gospel not to the 'archons'. The former clearly have an informed choice to make but Paul's says the latter would have chosen otherwise had they known who they were really killing.

It is frustrating for me that, despite an admitted lack of familiarity with Q, you feel free to speculate about it. I'm just not interested in providing a primer on Q to you. Read Kirby's website or the Wikipedia article if you don't want to read an entire book (though that is still, IMO, the best way to understand the argument). The end of the Wikipedia argument is basically where I started with my inclusion of Q here (ie a typical basis for imagining what the historical Jesus was like).

Amaleq13

I suppose I could be requiring Paul to make more sense in his theology than is warranted.

If a layered Q is assumed and Paul would be willing to ignore a teaching Jesus as a potential threat to prematurely revealing the mystery, then a connection could be established. However, I still think that the thinking resulting in the development of Q would be considered by Paul as teaching "another Jesus".

TedM

If Paul is just imagining a mythical Jesus he might imagine one in which archons weren't 'tipped' off in any way. If Paul is just relating what happened, all we can say is that the archons weren't suspicious enough to not act, and Paul's comments in 1 Cor are just a reflection of that fact. If Paul is just relating what happened, I don't see where we have much to go on from Paul to speculate about whether their lack of understanding made sense or not.


Although I'd say "little" instead of nothing, I agree.

I don't know. I can list the usual--his attributes, where he died, born under the law, etc... Where are we going with this? How about getting back to the various representations of Jesus by others? Did you see my response (finally) on your 5 points regarding 'enemies' today?


It isn't clear to me that Paul believed it couldn't have been for those who had the right spiri.


"known' is the key word. It isn't clear to me that Paul would say the source of knowledge is any different for them ultimately--it isn't scripture or teachings, it is God himself through his spirit to those who aren't foolish.


I've read some on Q, but haven't looked at the strength of Kloppenborg's or Mack's positions. Maybe I'll try to find a good site that states their cases in good summary form.

Did you mean "unlayered", one that therefore retains more Paul-like features of Jesus? I am not convinced that a wisdom teaching Jesus is incompatable with Paul's Jesus, though any group that portrayed Jesus ONLY as the one in Q might be seen as teaching another Jesus by Paul, due to such a drastic difference in emphasis. I still need to complete the Paul-Q similarities I started. That might help illuminate how wide the gap is.

ted

Amaleq13

You've shifted the focus from what I was saying didn't make sense. I was saying that it didn't make sense to me to suggest that the Son would, in his incarnation, risk exposing his true identity to the 'archons'. Paul states they would not have killed him had they known. If the Son was intent on getting them to kill him, it makes no sense for him to risk becoming known.

Where is the "little"? The instructions from the risen Christ?

Only after you mentioned it but I'm not surprised you consider them insufficient. Given the paucity of the material, they are necessarily speculative.

I guess that depends on whether you think Paul believed everything happened exactly the way God wanted it to happen. If so, nobody could have figured it out before God wanted it figured out.

Nope, I meant an initial layer that only suggests a wisdom-teaching Jesus. The more of the other stuff you add, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile it with the fact that the Son's true nature remained unknown until later.

As I said, if I cut Paul some slack in the making sense department, I can see him being willing to ignore a teaching Jesus and go on to state he was killed without the 'archons' knowing who he was. A miracle-performing Jesus is another story entirely.

As far as general similarities are concerned, you've got the preaching of a Kingdom of God but I'm not sure how unusual that was at the time or how compatible the specifics can be said to be. You could also include that both depict a central figure who was only later recognized as something greater.

Though it seems like the natural assumption to make, considering the Q prophets to be the same guys as the Pillars appears to me to create significant difficulties. For one thing, where do the resurrection appearances fit into the creation of this hypothetical source text? It just seems to make a lot of problem go away if we assume it to represent an independent line of thinking.

TedM

I'm not quite following. When do you mean by "later"? Isn't the Christian tradition that his true nature was known very soon after the crucifixion?

Actually, it is Paul's Jesus that you say is not making sense if he becomes a teacher and miracle worker, right? If HJ, then perhaps Paul prefers a lower-key Jesus because that makes more sense to him. As for Jesus himself, IF he taught and performed miracles, maybe he didn't really forsee his own crucifixion at all, or earlier in his ministry when he first became a teacher and miracle worker.

Ok, that's a start. I'll let you know if I come up with any others.

Maybe the resurrection appearances didn't involve any messages from Jesus, so they don't fit a 'sayings' book. The Q book seems a bit odd to me in that it has sayings, and then some doings. I wonder if it started out with a list of "Jesus said" sayings, and then an early, now lost, Gospel took them and added to them further information (John the Baptist, etc..) in more biographical form, which was then used for Matthew and Luke. While Paul doesn't clearly reference such a work, Acts (20:35) quotes him as saying "In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive". Interestingly, that isn't found in Q or the gospels at all. Papias refers to Mathew writings down the "sayings". And, James (I know your objections) has strong Q references. Here are 3 references to Q-like material without reference to the known gospels. I can't help but think they may reflect an actual early Christian tradition of sayings by their Jesus. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't help the case for this himself.

ted

Amaleq13

Right. By "later" I mean after he was dead. Depictions of Jesus being recognized as powerful and magical, etc. don't seem to me to correspond with Paul's description of a Jesus nobody suspected might be something more than he appeared.

I think a lower-key Jesus is much more consistent with his statements. The more prominent, powerful, magical, and respected we imagine the HJ to have been, the less correspondence I see with Paul's depiction.

I assume that the Gospel depictions of Jesus predicting his fate are fabrications.

Given the apparent impact of them, it is hard to see this as a good enough reason to ignore them. But it isn't just ignoring them but an increasing emphasis on the significance of the teaching Jesus instead of them.

Why not add something about the resurrection?

What are they?