|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-02-2010, 04:59 PM
|
#1 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Paul's Jesus according to spamandham and me
Introduction
This thread is all about which theory explains the problems of the Pauline epistles most efficiently:
Proposed problems with Paul's belief in a human Jesus spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
There is a weird assumption that underlies this proposed problem: Paul is less likely to quote from a spiritual Jesus than a human Jesus, as if a spiritual Jesus would not talk to Paul. Is this assumption warranted? Why? Would not a spiritual Jesus be more likely to be quoted? Unlike a human Jesus, there is no way to dispute or contradict a spiritual Jesus revealed only to Paul. In fact, there are at least two times that Paul quotes from Jesus, one time from a spiritual Jesus: 2 Corinthians 12:9 7Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness."...and another time from a physically human Jesus: 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."But, perhaps because of the relatively few times that Paul quotes from Jesus, those passages can be seen as interpolations. A good explanation can at least be speculated: Paul did not know the sayings of Jesus, except what he got second-hand. His most important religious rivals were direct disciples of Jesus. If he quoted from Jesus, he would easily lose a dispute. "Jesus never said that. I know, because I was there! Where were you?" That solution is a little ad hoc, I guess. But, is it any less likely than the MJ alternative? Why would Paul not quote from a spiritual Jesus? spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
Well, for one thing, Jesus' crucifixion really wasn't special. It was like any other Roman crucifixion. Paul certainly would have thought of this particular crucifixion as special, and, in fact, he did make an explanation: Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God {did:} sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and {as an offering} for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
It is true that Paul often throws around the words for "crucify" and "cross" metaphorically. That is generally what evangelists and preachers tend to do, especially Paul. However, you cannot easily ignore the occasions where no explanation fits but a very Earthly physical human crucifixion: Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed {as} crucified?Examining the context, Paul was referring to the bewitchers as the Christians in the camp of Peter (Cephas), James and John, who were with Jesus at the time he was crucified (according to the gospel myths). Philippians 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.What does Paul mean here? Being found in appearance as a man, in a spiritual sense? spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
Paul had a theological agenda--many, in fact--and the way he advanced his various agenda is by weaving it into the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It makes no difference whether he thought of the crucifixion as spiritual or symbolic. spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
I simply don't know what spamandham means with the phrase, "demonstration of the crucifixion." Sorry. spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
I will repeat Galatians 3:1. This is referring to bewitchers who were present during the crucifixion, ergo, before the resurrection. You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed {as} crucified?Besides, how well does spamandham's explanation really fit? Is he saying that Paul's Jesus is unlikely to have appeared to people spiritually before the resurrection? Why? Conclusion It is not that I think Paul's Jesus was exclusively physical, the same way the real Jesus probably was. Paul clearly refers to a spiritual Jesus many times. So, it seems like the most reasonable conclusion is that Paul believed in both. Proposed problems with a historical Jesus The rest of these proposed problems relate to the gospels, not to Paul's model of Jesus, so it relates more directly with the historicity of Jesus, but I will answer them anyway. spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
In fact, the family of Jesus was not lost to history. Paul mentions James, "the Lord's brother," the Christian gospels mention Mary, Joseph, the unnamed sisters and the names of all four brothers of Jesus, and Josephus mentions James, "the brother of Jesus." What is the problem again? spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
Jesus really had no tomb. The Roman poet Pseudo-Manetho wrote about crucifixion: “Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate; they are fastened and nailed to it in the most bitter torment, evil food for bird of prey and grim pickings for dogs”It is likely that Jesus suffered the same fate: his body was left on the stake, and scavenging animals picked apart his body, leaving nothing--perhaps allowing the women to believe that he had resurrected. Christian myth developed a tomb of Jesus, because the retrospective prophecy of Isaiah 53 required it: And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death.spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
Christians did try to fit the Passion narrative to the Old Testament as best as they could. But, there are, in fact, significant differences between Isaiah 53 and the Christian narrative. He was oppressed and afflicted,There are times where Jesus keeps his mouth shut (Mark 14:61), but there are very significant scenes where Jesus opens it (Mark 15:37). He was assigned a grave with the wicked,Jesus would have to be assigned a grave with someone who is both rich and wicked. But, if a rich man is charitable enough to allow a tomb for Jesus, would he also be wicked? So Christians settled on just rich (Mark 15:42-46). he will see his offspring and prolong his days,He prolonged his days (this may have been the key passage that motivated belief in the resurrection of Jesus), but he did not see his offspring. Jesus had no children (as far we know). Psalm 22 is another retrospective prophecy that shaped the orthodox gospel story. Again, there are significant differences. 16 Dogs have surrounded me;In the passion narratives, there are none of these things:
If the gospels were constructed entirely from these Judaic scriptures, then we would expect 100% of the elements to fit the gospels. Instead, it looks more like edits were made, for a variety of reasons, from a story that Christians originally did not choose. It certainly would not be expected that anyone would weave a first-century story around Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. The former is mostly in present tense and the latter is mostly in past tense. What explains the two thieves crucified alongside Jesus? What explains the betrayal by Judas? What explains the denials of Peter? |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
03-02-2010, 05:58 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
|
Quote:
I also agree partly with your criticism of spamanham's point about not getting quotes from a heavenly person. Most likely, his visionary Jesus (and we all agree he had one, right - were they just gazing pleasantly into each others' eyes in their encounters?  ) would have spoken to him in riddles, as these kinds of visions often do - although I do think it's plausible Paul wheedled some kind of basic biography from his Jesus too - i.e. Paul believed Jesus had been physically crucified partly because his visionary Jesus told him about it ("Know, Paul, that I was crucified by the rulers of this world [&c]" - that type of thing, again, it ought to be a piece of background knowledge of all investigators of these matters that these things happen, strange beings appear to talk to visionaries and dreamers in their visions and dreams). i.e. his visionary Jesus may have given him confirmation of some of what the Jerusalem people suspected they had seen in Scripture (which may be why he went to see them, why he felt there was some link between them and him). At any rate, it's not necessarily a strong objection that we can't find direct quotes - to either the HJ or the MJ positions.But mostly, again, my main sticking point is that to get any quotes to be words from a historical person, you need reason to believe a historical person was there - if you find one THEN, ah yes, it makes perfect sense, Paul must have been partly responding (albeit in a peculiar, distal, visionary way) to a real human being. The logic has to be that way round, the logical necessity flows in that direction. Otherwise you just have Paul describing what could easily be plain visions, with the Christ figure in them being subjectively real to him, but having no significance for us historical investigators (it doesn't help us find a human Jesus). In fact, come to think of it, that's how I'd rather think of the argument from silence re. Paul - it's not that it disproves a human Jesus, it just makes Paul of dubious value as evidence for a human Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
03-02-2010, 06:23 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
03-02-2010, 06:38 PM
|
#4 | |||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York, U.S.A.
Posts: 715
|
Quote:
It's possible to think of Paul as responding to a symbolic crucifixion of a figure who is only transcendent. It's possible to imagine him cognizant only of aspects of "in the flesh" that relate to circumcision and to more general human suffering that's merely paralleled rather than directly experienced by a mystical compound Jesus existing only in the ether. It's possible to imagine him as viewing Jesus as strictly a visionary experience of the metaphysical, and real only in that. These are possible construals, but they're way down on the list after the far more plausible:- Paul makes the occasional reference to a human Jesus through referencing his sayings in 1 Corinthians, and makes the distinction elsewhere between apostles versus members of Jesus's family, and speaks explicitly of him having suffered a typical Roman execution -- and references so much else that tallies with an account of a human Jesus -- for the plain reason that Paul really did conceive of Jesus as a human being who really lived on earth, whatever other qualities Paul may give Jesus in addition. That's the earliest evidence we have as to the type of thing that was going on here (and we have it from "Paul"'s own words): we DON'T have direct evidence of any ancient conception of some Jesus suffering elsewhere than on earth; that's merely a far-fetched construal. We DO have positive evidence that AT LEAST Paul did conceive of Jesus as having a human biography. Combine that with the ABSENCE of any unequivocal evidence for any purely symbolic construction on Jesus's sufferings from any of the other earliest texts. Combine that with the distinct referenceS at crucial points in the earliest texts to people intimately acquainted with Jesus, including family members, who knew a human Jesus PERSONALLY. So: there is probable evidence OF a human Jesus, and there is nothing that logically necessitates that there be NO human Jesus (because we can very easily explain how metaphysical baggage was added to Jesus's biography, but we tie ourselves in knots if we try subtracting the plainly human features in the earliest extant texts that bear out the probable evidence we DO have elsewhere of an historical and purely human Jesus). Chaucer |
|||
|
|
|
03-02-2010, 06:40 PM
|
#5 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pua, in northern Thailand
Posts: 2,823
|
arnoldo
That seems to be making a myth overly complicated. Fiction tends to be simpler and more logical than non-fiction. The fact that Paul seems to contradict himself fits with a real person. |
|
|
|
03-02-2010, 06:50 PM
|
#6 | ||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
In fact, most of your explanations seem ad hoc. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
03-02-2010, 11:11 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
The question is when did they write. So far it has been deduced, contrary to the Church writers, that the Gospels were not written or not likely to have been written by anyone called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and further that the Gospels were written later than the Church writers would have us believe. Again, It has been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul to write Epistles contrary to the Church writers and that Acts of the Apostles was written later than the Church writers claimed. So, we have a pattern developing, the Church writers are trying to place their Jesus story ealier than it should have been. The Church writers are trying to claim that their Jesus was the origin of Christianity. But, the chronology, early dating and authorship given by Church writers are being denied and discarded. Their Jesus story was late and the authors are unknown. The entire Canon must be or is very likely to be later than the Church writers would like us to believe. |
|
|
|
|
03-02-2010, 11:38 PM
|
#8 | ||||||||||||||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
b. Nevertheless, he does spamandham's proposed problem: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What they are questioning is Paul's *portrayal* of the crucifixion. What on earth could that possibly mean if not either a performance of some kind (some scholars argue that Paul is an actor) , or an argument rooted in Jewish scriptures (my preferred perspective)? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
...it's getting late. I'll try to get to the rest after some sleep. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
03-02-2010, 11:56 PM
|
#9 | ||||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Jesus of the NT WAS A FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN. A MYTH. MERMAIDS are HUMAN and FISH. MYTHS. Why don't ApostateAbe now post all the passages that clearly show Jesus was equal to God or the Son of God who was raised from the dead. But, Jesus from heaven will answer ApostateAbe. The Jesus in heaven will tell him whose seed he is and what kind of star he is. Listen to the heavenly Jesus. The Pauline writer listened to the heavenly Jesus. Revelations 22.16 Quote:
And now this is the Pauline write,r in black and white, with the other half of the story about Jesus the Creator. Colossians 1:12-29 - Quote:
Jesus was the Creator of all things. The Pauline Jesus was the Creator and the Crucified who was raised from the dead. ApostateAbe your Jesus is only a half of the Pauline Jesus, show us the heavenly side. The heavenly Jesus is in black and white, too. Listen to Paul. He will tell you. Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
03-03-2010, 02:19 AM
|
#10 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
|
Quote:
Ha ha, yes very funny But I think you're missing the point. We don't have anything in Paul that shows anybody he's talking about knew a human Jesus personally. The only faintest glimmer of hope for historicists is the James/brother reference. So: no internal evidence of a human being known personally by anybody mentioned. And no external evidence of such a human being. Yes, there's internal evidence of some belief in historicity - but of a divine being having gotten onto the earth at some point, clothed in flesh. But that's not what the HJ case needs. At this point, it's undecidable whether this is a trace of a real person who's subsequently been mythologised, or simply myth. You need another kind of internal evidence, or external evidence, to help decide. What's required is not earthly, fleshly-seeming, historical-seeming references in the myth, regarding the mythical entity (after all lots of myths have that), but references which give the game away that some sort of real, ordinary human being was involved. Plus of course external evidence. It's only when you have some reason to believe there was a man, that the references in Paul crystallize as references to a real human being (albeit larded over with some mythical element). |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
