EarlDoherty

All of spin's objections are thoroughly dealt with in my book, Paul's "man" as the widespread concept of the Heavenly Man of the times, "man" defined as a spiritual entity in 1 Cor. 15:35-49, the concept, equally of the times, that a divine being could die (even be crucified) in the lower spiritual realm, "seed of David" capable of being just as mystically rooted as the gentiles are "seed of Abraham" (hardly physical there), and on and on. I don't intend to argue the whole case again here. If someone is really interested in arriving at an informed opinion about the question of Jesus' historicity, I think it is not too much to expect that he/she will read the primary book on that subject available today. Then he/she can argue the case from any side they wish. They don't have to agree with me, but at least they will know the full extent of the mythicist case they seek to discredit and what's required to do so.

As for Maryhelena, as she and others here may know from past experience, she and I simply don't think on the same wavelength, and debate with her I have long since regarded as pointless. How anyone can declare that Paul woujld never find himself required to discuss, appeal to, take into account things his Jesus allegedly did, could have done, the circumstances of his presumed life, when he is out on the proselytizing hustings talking about a human being who had supposedly been on earth, regardless of what he had turned that human being into, is beyond me. (And, of course, it's not only Paul. Apparently the entire early Christian movement all followed the same unlikely idiosyncrasies.)

Anyway, best of the New Year to everyone.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

The "entire early Christian movement", from the NT account, preached Paul's Christ crucified - a figure that the gospel accounts have given a pseudo-history. They moved on, Earl, moved on from the real history of those relevant, pre Paul years to the 'salvation' interpretation of that history as it became recorded in the gospel storyline. The 'salvation' interpretation is the message not it's roots in historical realities. Up with the historical anchor and sail away....It is only us nosey parkers that want the sordid historical details.

From 10 years ago on another list...

Earl
> Mary, I have a feeling that we could spend an unlimited amount of time
talking around each other. I truly do not understand what you are
getting at. At the very least, it's murky. But that may be just my
mindset. In the end, I don't think it matters. We are approaching this
subject from two different points of view, maybe even from two very
different mindsets. It's possible they are both potentially productive,
in one way or another. I suggest that we both express ourselves as we
see fit.


Mary
I, also, do not like to feel that I am talking past someone. Yes, we are
each coming to this topic of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth from
two different perspectives - let us not then, unnecessarily, seek to
devalue a perspective that we are not, ourselves, familiar with.

C'est la vie, Earl, all the best for the New Year.

Toto

Where does he say this? Are you relying on the phrase "untimely born" in one translation of 1 Cor 15? That phrase means something completely different.

Paul does state that there was a movement before him that he persecuted (unless that is an interpolation) but we don't know anything about it.

I don't see why not.

I don't follow the logic of this.

Just to note that we have gone through this before. Antigonus II Mattathias was not crucified

maryhelena

Fine, if you don't care for my wording - yours is OK by me. My point is simply that Paul acknowledges that there were others involved with the Jesus movement prior to his time and that he admits to persecuting them.


A battle of the visions? And no connection with reality - pure speculation? That would, to my mind, be a step too far from a Jewish perspective. If all we had was Paul - then such speculation might get by - but we don't. We have the gospel story and it's very Jewish prophetic interests regarding historical events.


The choice is either pure speculation or historical interpretation - I think there is more value to be gained when there is some history, some evidence, some reality, to ones arguments or interpretations.

Antigonus II Mattathias

The quotations from Cassius Dio's Roman History is still up on Wikipedia.

Paul could of course have had other historical crucifixions in mind for his Christ crucified:


The Jesus Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk)

aa5874

So where does "Paul" say he was the FIRST , the earliest, or preached Christ BEFORE the Apostles?

1."Paul" stated he was LAST to see the resurrected Jesus. 1 Cor 15.3-8.

2."Paul" claimed that there were people in Christ BEFORE him. Romans 16.7

3. "Paul" claimed that he persecuted the Church of Christ of Judea. Galatians 1.21-23

4. "Paul" claimed he persecuted the faith that he NOW preached. Galatians 1.23

5. "Paul" claimed there were Apostles BEFORE him in Jerusalem. Galatians 1.17

6 The author of Acts implied "Paul" was converted AFTER the day of Pentecost.

7. "Pentecost" is about 50 days AFTER the "Passover".

8. No Church writer claimed "Paul" was the first to preach Christ.

9. No Church writer claimed "Paul" preached a "heavenly crucifixion".

10. If "Paul" preached a "heavenly crucifixion" then he would be an heretic.

11. No Church writer claimed "Paul" was an heretic.

12. A Church writer claimed that there was a tradition that "Paul" was Aware of gLuke. "Church History" 3.4.8.

The evidence places "Paul" AFTER the Gospels were written.

spin

Done this way, it appears to be only slight of hand. It isn't just "seed of David", but "seed of David according to the flesh" and the participle for "made of the seed of David" is the same participle (γενομενος) usually translated "born" throughout the LXX for the birth of ordinary humans, so the packaging of the full phrase in no way points out of the ordinary, "born of the seed of David according to the flesh".

And one comes to the "spiritual body" only after the discourse of death of real human beings. The notion of death seems to put a strain on the spiritualization of Paul's Jewish thought.

Jewish thought tended not to go for fancy births. They tended to be the real thing with the way the seed got there in the first place up for grabs. Paul indicates his dependence on Jewish thought when he describes his upbringing in Gal 1:14. That's why the movement is from the person born of the seed of David according to the flesh to being "declared to be the son of god" by resurrection (Rom 1:4).

This is echoed by the death of Jesus in 1 Cor 15:12-26 followed by a change to the spiritual. As Paul says, "it is not the spiritual (πνευματικος) first, but the natural (ψυχικος), and then the spiritual." (1 Cor 15:46) Without resurrection there is no passage from ψυχικος to πνευματικος. (The carnal implications of ψυχικος are understandable when one sees it implying blood in Homer--see L&S p.2027. Its use in the n.t. is infrequent but revealing, usually in contrast to "spiritual", but in James 3:15 placed in context of "earthly" and "devilish".) The man from heaven doesn't get to be so without being raised, the movement from ψυχικος to πνευματικος. There would be no spiritual man: "if there is no resurrection of the dead, then christ was not raised" (1 Cor 15:13).

"But in fact christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead has come through a man" (1 Cor 15:20f). Paul doesn't signal any change in status here between one man and the other. They are the same starting material. It is resurrection that gives the spiritual body. This is made possible through the victory over death which is the result of sin. It is the blood of christ (Rom 3:24f) that brings the remission of sin. You might want to think of it as "spiritual blood", but it's really a contradiction in terms, if ψυχη is seen as related to blood.

And on.


spin

judge

But why on earth would he have mentioned that in the letters we have from him?

You need to explain why it was "required" for paul to go into the earthly life in letters dealing with very different issues.

Using this site to advertise your book, and telling people they have to buy it, isnt very impressive.

aa5874

The theory that Jesus was MYTH is always good. It is the very MYTH descriptions of Jesus Christ in the NT and Church writings that have SPARKED the debate.

If Jesus was described as a mere man and acted as a mere man then there would have hardly been much argument.

But, the MYTH evidence is there and it WILL NEVER go away.

People's opinions may differ, people can BELIEVE whatever they like, but Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, John 1.1-3 and Galatians 1.1 are CAST in STONE. These passages can be found in the earliest EXTANT Codices and were USED as Holy Scripture in the Churches.

Jesus was DESCRIBED and BELIEVED to be the Offspring of the Holy Ghost, without human father, the Creator, the Word that was God, and was with God BEFORE all things were made.

There is an OVERWHELMING case for MJ.

Where is the historical source for HJ?

HJers do NOT agree with the MYTH description of Jesus in the EXTANT Codices. HJers are arguing that the NT is NOT historically RELIABLE since Jesus was a mere man and the authors either FALSELY, or ERRONEOUSLY claimed he was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost and Creator.

But, after making their accusations that the NT's description of Jesus cannot be true or is fundamentally EMBELLISHED they have NO other source that describes Jesus Christ as a mere man.

"Paul" who claimed to have been ALIVE when a governor under Aretas attempted to grab him did NOT write about the life of Jesus in Nazareth or Anywhere.

All the Gospel authors and the NT, regardless of birth narratives or not, did NOT write anything about the 30 years Jesus lived in Nazareth. Not even an INTERPOLATION.

There is NOTHING for HJ.

The HJ theory cannot be sustained.

angelo

You believe that a few un-educated first century Galilean peasants could read history books?

maryhelena

aa5874, I don't believe there was a historical gospel Jesus of Nazareth. This figure is myth; a literary creation.
I do believe that historical figures have contributed 'color', for want of a better word, to the creation of the gospel Jesus. And, if it is christian origins, christian history, that we are seeking, then an endeavor to understand the historical events of the relevant NT timeline should be a high priority. Identifying the pieces, so to speak, could help in understanding early Jewish/Christian origins. What historical events were deemed relevant, why they were deemed relevant etc.....should be fundamental to a search for christian origins. All the interpretations of the NT are just that, interpretations - that's the icing on the cake; icing that can only do what it always has done - (yeh - make people fat...) produce yet more growth of new christian branches...

My issues with Earl resolve around, what seems to me, to be his unwillingness to adequately face the reality of the gospel storyline. However much Paul was running with his spiritual Christ figure - the gospel storyline was still deemed to be relevant. It's there - and it cannot be wished away because it complicates any purely spiritual Jesus construct. Sure, it's a mythological, a spiritual take on things - a pseudo-history. But is that not the point - a history, even a pseudo-history, was deemed to be relevant.

10 plus years ago, before I 'met' up with Earl on a list, I did write to him - and he posted some of that and his reply on his website. In that reply, pasted below, he acknowledges the fact that historical figures fed into the myth of the gospel Jesus. Fair enough - although it would be great if he were to pursue that matter further. Unfortunately, he seems to have chosen not to do so....

I think Earl missed the point here. I was not saying that any historical figures, and I specifically mentioned more than one, that fed into the creation of the gospel Jesus figure, "constitute the existence of an historical Jesus". But that, somehow or another, seems to be how he read my position - or assumed as the consequences of my position - which I found to be rather baffling...