Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 10-06-2009, 06:45 AM

I agree that opinions from modern Christians are not strictly relevant. But clearly there was a trend in the development of early Christianity towards "historicizing" Jesus as much as possible (and resisting docetism). The gospels are the best example of this, fleshing out the bare bones of an originally spiritual saviour for the sake of broadening the appeal of the new cult (or possibly fusing the spiritual saviour with some kind of Kingdom of Heaven tradition)

As for Paul, I like Doherty's interpretation, which is that the original gospel message was about entities in the spirit world, combined with intense apocalyptic expectation. By the 2nd C the eschatology was toned down, and the divine hero brought down to earth. There are ambiguous passages in the Pauline corpus I grant you, but overall the flavour is other-worldly afaics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

According to the New Testament, Jesus was the most unique person in the history of the world, a real divine man (not a fake like the pagans worship). Christians want to retain this identification while simultaneously using regular historical criteria to establish "proof" of Jesus' life on earth. To me these are contradictory ideas.

True, but: WHO CARES what Christians today think? How does that affect what I've written in the OP?

Why are you bringing up what "Christians want to retain"? How does this advance this discussion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

It's much easier to imagine a spiritual Christ who inspires faith than to imagine an executed criminal "in disguise" (Mark's messianic secret) who rises to glory after fooling all the bad guys here and in heaven (for me there's no heaven or resurrection, so all that's left is an implausible story believed by gullible people, hardly a new phenomenon in human history).

Skeptics won't buy any of this, and believers won't question any of it. Some kind of stand-off I guess.

Bacht, do you see how driving every discussion back to "what believers think" just poisons the argument? Unless you are specifically interested in apologetics and counter-apologetics, what does it matter? I one of those liberal Christians, and I honestly don't give a shit about either in this discussion, and I don't see why you do. Why are you bringing up what believers will and won't question? What does it matter?

If you think that a "spiritual Christ" makes more sense in Paul, how do you explain all those "in the flesh" statements?

JoeWallack · 10-06-2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

What were the sources of Paul? You are pricking against the go ads of historical methodology so I'll give you some hints. What does Paul explicitly tell us were his sources? What does Paul explicitly tell us were not his sources?

It's generally assumed that Paul's gospel message came from revelation/scriptures, and that he learned additional facts from those he persecuted and, later on, from the other Christians (like Phil 2 and 1 Cor 14). I know that some on this board disagree with that, so I acknowledge it could be wrong, though I haven't seen anything that convinces me personally (if that matters to anyone).

JW:
You ask a lot of questions for someone from New Jewsea.

I'll start you off with something apparently totally unfamiliar to you and your sources, criteria for supposed witness:

1) Position - Was Paul in position to be a witness to HJ?

2) Credibility - Is Paul credible? (god help you).

3) Confirmation - Is Paul's witness confirmed?

For a comparison test consider the above for Josephus as witness to Herod the Great.

In a further effort to help you ask the right questions before you give answers Spin has made the distinction between "historical" and "real". You need to try and define "HJ". If we lack the evidence to conclude that a Natural Jesus followed the basic outline of the Canonical Gospels than what exactly does "HJ" mean?

And for christ's sake please stop proof-texting that Jesus was historical. It's fine to deny proof-texts from Paul that Jesus was not historical. But don't turn around and than use proof-texts from Paul that Jesus was historical. Accept the contradictions.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

spamandham · 10-06-2009, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

To be clear, I'm not "presuming" anything. I'm assuming that, based on the known evidence, we can say that there probably was a John the Baptist, Gamaliel, etc. In the same way, I'm saying that based on Paul and Mark (and all early writings in fact), we can say that there probably was a historical Jesus.

I don't know about these other men, but I know enough about Jesus to just flat out disagree with your assessment of parsimony. Certainly it's possible that there was a historical core to Jesus, but that seems to me to complicate rather than simplify. The evidence against Jesus is the same as the evidence for Jesus, so it isn't a matter of evidence, it's a matter of analyzing that evidence.

Quote:

But I think Paul and Mark alone is enough for the assumption to be made. I acknowledge that the assumption may be wrong. But Paul and Mark do seem to point towards a HJ.

Paul, analyzed by itself, with the questionable portions set aside (such as 1 Cor 15), does not indicate a recent human Jesus of Nazareth Christ. Mark certainly does, but so is Tom Sawyer presented as human. If there is good reason to suspect that Mark's Jesus is a literary construction, then the case for a historical Jesus falls completely apart. IMHO, there is good reason to suspect that Mark's Jesus is a literary construction, so as a minimum we are at "might have been" rather than "probably was".

Quote:

Paul writes about a Jesus Christ who was crucified, and a few years later Mark writes about a Jesus Christ who was crucified.

Paul also writes that he himself was crucified (Gal 2:20). So we know that Paul uses 'crucified' in a metaphorical sense. It's possible that Paul uses 'crucified' to refer to a Roman crucifixion at times and in a metaphorical sense at other times, but it's also possible that he only ever uses it in a metaphorical sense, which seems to me to be the simpler way of reading Paul.

spamandham · 10-06-2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Assuming the "in the flesh" statements are original to Paul, then Paul probably regarded Jesus as historical.

Firstly, I think we would need to identify what "in the flesh" statements you are referring to. They are few and far between, and some are in regions of text that are suspected of interpolation for independent reasons (such as 1 Cor 15).

"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh- Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart."

Solo · 10-06-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It is not clear what "verse" renassault is refering to. But he clearly believes that 1 Cor 15:3-11 was written by Paul. I don't but....here is something for you and spin to chew on.

Paul clearly heard of Jesus before he had his revelation of him as Christ. Any problem of using 2 Cr 5:16 to reach that conclusion ?

Yes, that is not what he says.

What he says is that he once regarded Christ from a human point of view but he does so no longer. For him to regard Christ from a human point of view someone would have had to tell him about Jesus. You are not going to deny that, are you ?

Quote:

That, if you want to play the Doherty game, in and of itself does not mean

a) that "Jesus" was not a different version of the mythical figure, previously wholly invented by Paul's competition, and

b) that Jesus was considered Messiah in the Jerusalem community of James. (see eg. Heb 3:1).

a) How do you know?
b) Paul wrote Hebrews?

a) by applying logic.

b) no, he did not. I cited Heb 3:1 because the view of Jesus as the "apostle" and "high priest" does not mesh with the (Davidic) concept of messiah.

Quote:

Unfortunately though for that theory you have Paul forswearing : I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. (1 Cr 2:2)

That would indicate that in the pre-Pauline original version of the myth - if the figure was wholly mythical - Jesus was either not crucified or his crucifixion was not important. (roughly what Gal 3:1 is telling us).

Agreed ? Any other possibility ?

pre-Pauline?

meaning ?

Quote:

So then, you and spin need to explain how the proclaiming of this purely mythical crucifixion could trigger persecution by the authorities (Gal 6:12, 2 Cr 11:24-26).

If you can't, Paul is a witness to the existence of a historical figure around which the Christ myth was built.

Regards,
Jiri

How do you know it actually did?

Paul says it actually did. So either Paul and his missionaries were liars or his whippings and attempted stoning was a direct consequence of his proclaiming the cross and Jesus as messiah. I have no reason to think Paul lied. So would the authorities whip and jail Paul for the worship of some crucified mythical concoction ?

Or do you want to tell me that they did not know Paul was fibbing ? Perhaps they too thought mistakenly Paul referred to some rebellious Jewish seer put away by the law. Right ?

Jiri

dog-on · 10-06-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Yes, that is not what he says.

What he says is that he once regarded Christ from a human point of view but he does so no longer. For him to regard Christ from a human point of view someone would have had to tell him about Jesus. You are not going to deny that, are you ?

How does that necessarily follow?

Quote:

Paul says it actually did. So either Paul and his missionaries were liars or his whippings and attempted stoning was a direct consequence of his proclaiming the cross and Jesus as messiah. I have no reason to think Paul lied. So would the authorities whip and jail Paul for the worship of some crucified mythical concoction ?

Or do you want to tell me that they did not know Paul was fibbing ? Perhaps they too thought mistakenly Paul referred to some rebellious Jewish seer put away by the law. Right ?

Jiri

Whipping and attempted stoning?

Paul claims his knowledge through revelation and scripture. You seem to want to interject something more, something that Paul never refers to.

Besides, how exactly would one of Paul's followers test the veracity of Paul's claims?

Solo · 10-06-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It is not clear what "verse" renassault is refering to. But he clearly believes that 1 Cor 15:3-11 was written by Paul. I don't but....here is something for you and spin to chew on.

Paul clearly heard of Jesus before he had his revelation of him as Christ. Any problem of using 2 Cr 5:16 to reach that conclusion ?

Yes, I think you misunderstand Paul's rhetoric. This is what I said back in February to you:

You seem to believe that he admits to his Corinthians that he made a mistake, didn't have the right idea. You must be joking on two accounts: 1) he doesn't make such mistakes (I thought you were aware of glimpses of his psychological make-up), and 2) he's the one advocating the spiritual approach as opposed to his opponents such as seen in Galatians. He tells the Galatians "live by the spirit" (5:16). He tells the Corinthians the same in 2 C 5:16 but using round-about rhetoric. He generally treats the Corinthians very differently from the Galatians.

You had difficulty understanding my comment, ie that he had no interest in indicating his learning about Jesus from other people. He was talking about something different, trying to teach the Corinthians how they should live, ie "by the spirit". The persistent use of "we" provides the Corinthian reader with a standard to live up to and to take it as literal in 2 Cor 5:16 misunderstands the text.

I.e. he wasn't going to talk about anything else by not admitting to know anything else. The only thing he was prepared to talk about was Jesus Christ and him crucified.

I replied to you in February:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Look, spin, at this point the only thing that interests me is this: in your opinion, does 2 Cor 5:16 support the hypothesis that Paul knew about Jesus from ordinary human communication before receiving revelation from God about him as Christ.

"Yes", "no", or "I am not answering the question" will do. Anything else (including "why no") will not be addressed to me as I am frankly uninterested to continue this exchange lest the inanity of it reflects poorly on me.

Thank you for your understanding !

I see nothing has changed.

Quote:

I personally don't think Paul saw Jesus as mythical.

I don't know what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with me. You are confusing me with mythicists.

The confusion is in your head. I am not confusing you with anyone.

You are not a Jesus mythicist. I have seen you on occasion engaging avidly in historical deconstruction, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

If you can't, Paul is a witness to the existence of a historical figure around which the Christ myth was built.

And this is just silly. Paul believed in a real Jesus. As he never knew a Jesus, he is certainly not a witness to him. (You have a weird idea as to what "witness" means.)

As you have been told, Paul claims his gospel of Jesus came not from people but through revelation from god, who revealed Jesus to him. Try believing him.

spin

An excellent example of your attempt at deconstructing an argument:

Solo says: you (dog-on) and spin need to explain how the proclaiming of this purely mythical crucifixion could trigger persecution by the authorities (Gal 6:12, 2 Cr 11:24-26).

If you can't, Paul is a witness to the existence of a historical figure around which the Christ myth was built.

spin says: As Paul never knew a [sic] Jesus, he is certainly not a witness to him.

Jiri

bacht · 10-06-2009, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

you (dog-on) and spin need to explain how the proclaiming of this purely mythical crucifixion could trigger persecution by the authorities (Gal 6:12, 2 Cr 11:24-26).

Do we know for sure that there was official hostility towards Christians before 70 ce? Paul seems to have had a flair for enraging Jews in the synagogues he visited, possibly by teaching about a mythically crucified messiah to converted gentiles.

Solo · 10-06-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

What he says is that he once regarded Christ from a human point of view but he does so no longer. For him to regard Christ from a human point of view someone would have had to tell him about Jesus. You are not going to deny that, are you ?

How does that necessarily follow?

Well, it's quite simple. Paul's teachings came from God (or so he believed), and in that perspective they were a "spiritual point of view". But evidently, Paul knew about Jesus before he became enlightened by God. Well, then it is a fair inference that whatever he heard or read about Jesus or the phenomenon of Christ before he went to third heaven would have been provided by his fellow humans.

Quote:

Paul says it actually did. So either Paul and his missionaries were liars or his whippings and attempted stoning was a direct consequence of his proclaiming the cross and Jesus as messiah. I have no reason to think Paul lied. So would the authorities whip and jail Paul for the worship of some crucified mythical concoction ?

Or do you want to tell me that they did not know Paul was fibbing ? Perhaps they too thought mistakenly Paul referred to some rebellious Jewish seer put away by the law. Right ?

Whipping and attempted stoning?

Paul claims his knowledge through revelation and scripture. You seem to want to interject something more, something that Paul never refers to.

It would improve the quality of our conversation greatly if you actually read the passages that I am refering to.

Quote:

Besides, how exactly would one of Paul's followers test the veracity of Paul's claims?

And how could we then test the veracity of Paul's followers ?

Jiri

spamandham · 10-06-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Do we know for sure that there was official hostility towards Christians before 70 ce? Paul seems to have had a flair for enraging Jews in the synagogues he visited, possibly by teaching about a mythically crucified messiah to converted gentiles.

Even according to the "official" story, Christians were all Jews until Paul came along. If Jews were being persecuted, and considering that Paul was a Jewish member of a traditionally Jewish sect, it would be an ordinary act for Paul to be rounded up with the other Jews, independent of any claims regarding crucifixions or resurrections.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.