Dominus Paradoxum

That quotation doesn't support your point at all. They say both buried AND descended into hell. If buried meant the same, the passage would be a redundency. I would say that this passage is evidence that Paul did not have in mind a descent into sheol, for the authors of the creed clearly keep the two concepts seperate. I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that Paul was using a creed already in existence. I think it is likely to be an early form of the nicence creed. And you have not explained why Paul would say buried rather than descended into sheol. And as I said before, he says his resurrection is in accordance with the scriptures, not his burial.

NOGO

Layman,

I have often noticed this about you, Layman.
You play the fool, (for lack of a better term. No offense intended)
which shows that you are not arguing in good faith.

Amaleq13

Layman's claim was that having Paul use "buried" as a reference to a descent to Sheol constituted a "radical disjunction" with the use of "buried" by later Gospel authors. The fact that the Apostles' Creed incorporates both concepts seems to me to deny any "radical disjuction" between the two.

Correct and that is why the Apostles' Creed is best understood as incorporating both ideas without any hint of "radical disjunction".

I think Layman was assuming that I was arguing that Paul's reference to a Sheol descent denied a literal burial, thus, a "radical disjunction" ensues.

Then you are applying the same invalid methodology as Layman by reading later authors to understand what Paul believed.

The evidence clearly shows that Christians could believe that Jesus descended into Sheol and that he was literally buried. What the evidence of Paul does not show, however, is that Paul held both beliefs. It is possible that Paul had both meanings in mind but Layman has offered no evidence to require us to assume he was thinking of a literal burial. The Scriptural reference offered by NASB/AMP, OTOH, clearly requires us to assume Paul had a descent into Sheol in mind and it has already been conclusively established that this was a fundamental belief in early Christianity.

There is nothing inherently unreasonable in such a suggestion but, when it comes to actual evidence, there doesn't appear to be any good reason to assume this "creed" included a belief in a literal burial.

We might also ask why Paul says Christ rose "on the third day" when all four Gospel stories seem to indicate Jesus' body was already gone before the sun came up on Sunday (i.e. the "third day").

Do you ask why Paul doesn't say "crucified" when he states that "Christ died for our sins"? Authors make entirely subjective decisions all the time in their choice of words. Absent an interview with the author, the expectation of this knowledge seems neither reasonable nor necessary. That said, I think a reasonable suggestion, based on his other two symbolic uses of the word, is that Paul is continuing the Baptism="buried" with Christ theme. Note that there is no literal "burial" involved in a baptism but there is a literal "descent".

"we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead..."(Rom 6:4, YLT)

Note that Paul does not say "baptism to the grave" or "raised up out of the grave". If he had done either, the claim that Paul is talking about a literal burial throughout would seem to obtain significant support.

It is possible that Paul has both meanings in mind but that is neither clearly indicated nor apparently required by the Scriptural reference offered. Perhaps, as may have been true of the Disciples, he had no idea what actually happened to the body.

Your selective application of "in accordance with Scriptures" seems unjustified based on the majority of the translations offered by the Bible Gateway. Paul is portrayed as saying that Christ was buried and raised after three days "in accordance with Scripture". It is given as a single sentence. The Scriptural reference offered by the NASB/AMP clearly assumes both statements to be included. Also referenced is Acts 2:31:

"he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of [1] the Christ, that (1) HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. " (NASB [1]i.e. the Messiah (1) Acts 2:27)

What linguistic reasons do you have to support the claim that "in accordance with Scripture" only applies to the second of the two?

NOGO

First, it should be obvious to anyone that Paul believed as historical all events that he is referring to, even those that took place in heaven.

Example, Paul says that Yahweh created the world throygh Jesus.
Paul also believes that Jesus was declared "Son of God" after his resurrection. This took place in heaven.

Although not from Paul Hebrews gives all sorts of examples of things which took place in heaven and which Paul also most probably believed. Hebrews 1:4-5 speaks of events which took place in heaven.

There are many more examples from Hebrews. So Layman's contention that early Jews and Christians did not invent stories from Biblical passages is false.

Here is an example. Paul's idea of original sin. Paul claims that Jesus saved us from Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden.
Even if we admit the interpretation of the Genesis story (which I don't)
This idea is totally non-existing in rest of the OT.
None of the prophets say anything about a need to be saved from Adam's sin.
Jesus himself does not say anything about Adam's sin.
Matthew's Jesus says that his mission was for the Children of Israel only.
This whole idea is definitely not within Jewish tradition.

Paul invented this idea from OT midrash, pure and simple.


Layman
That he may do so hear in no way supports the idea that he invented the event from scripture.

What supports the idea that early Christians invented all this from scripture is as follows:

Point 1
If the man Jesus started Christianity THEN Paul would have quoted him as an authority in variously places in his letters. He never does. Paul prefers going back to scriptures for authoritative guidance. Let's see Layman explain this one.

Point 2
The Gospels' Jesus claims that his teachings are the source of salvation yet Paul never quotes a single one. His teachings are the bread from heaven. Paul is not in the business of spreading the bread from heaven.

Point 3
Numerous other discrpancies between the gospels and Paul's teachings and also Paul;s own admition that divergences existed among Christians point to a Christian movement which started with many interpretations of scriptures rather than a single authoritative source, that is, Jesus the man.

Point 4
Divergence even in the very nature of Jesus himself between the Synoptic Gospels and John suggests that a non-human Jesus was part of the early Christian fabric.


I stop here.
After Layman has provided explanations for all these then we can take his quibbles more seriously.

Amos

"Born according to the flesh" can be read to mean that Joseph was a sinner and that out of this conviction Christ was born. Let's note here that Christ was born and they shall call him Jesus. So Jesus was not born but Christ was and the new dual identity of Joseph, unto whom Christ was born, was to be called Jesus. Remember here that Joseph went to give an account of himself and this suggest that he was a sinner, in fact Joyce thought that Joseph was "pregant with despair" and when he gave an account of himself the Christ-child was born. This account of himself was the "timely uttering" of W. Woodsworth.

I believe the above is what Paul wanted to tell us in a round about way.

Ted Hoffman

Earlier posted by Layman:

Layman now disgrees with scholars. He treats as serious what scholars treat as crackpottery.

How different!

Toto

Please keep the thread on topic and avoid baiting Layman on an unrelated issue.

Don't criticize Layman for delving into the matter. It's what Doherty has been asking someone to do. I think that a debate between Layman and Doherty might actually be productive.

Ted Hoffman

Excellent points Nogo.
Amaleq's argument re:burial and descent make sense to me. 'Radical disjunstion' is an attempt to raise the bar higher gone awry.

Ted Hoffman

Point taken. I just thought it remarkable that Layman fronts an earnest facade when addressing Doherty while he rubbishes Doherty's work as not worthy of examination otoh.
The hypocricy is immoral though I agree its not part of the topic. It may however expose the reason behind why this debate is revolving rather than progressing/evolving: insincerity.
It may not be. Because Layman's approach in 'refuting' Doherty involves repeating the same old tired arguments and raising the bar arbitrarily. This is evident even when one examines Layman's handling of the usage of kata sarka in Pauline epistles (I have commented on this in another thread).

Layman also exposes a poor reading of Doherty's work (and Doherty has explicitly stated this). The problem with this is that it compels Doherty to repeat arguments he has already made: a thankless, time-wasting excercise.
Doherty's impression, from three recent threads, is that Layman arbitrarily puts up any objections that come to his mind at the moment. Objections which are poorly thought out and poorly presented and which fail to address opposing arguments and thus are simply red herrings.

In Doherty's reasoned opinion, Layman's raising of objections that Doherty has already addressed is tantamount to simply making [strident] noise.

Another deterrent is that Layman's posts are too dismissive (like Vinnie's) and do not contain new or remarkable expositions in the weaknesses of the mythicist case. Oftentimes, while examining Doherty's take on certain issues, Layman sees plenty of loopholes and naively 'devastates' Doherty's arguments zestfully and zealously.

But these counterarguments are cloaked in incorrect assumptions which Doherty has already addressed and suffer explanatory failure. In a nutshell, whereas Doherty's case is 'comprehensive', Layman's objections are scattered, inadequate and fail to account for many facts. An example is Nogo's point 1 above.

So, a formal debate between Layman and Doherty or the latter and Vinnie wouldn't take place because of this background. It does not matter that Layman has managed to wear a serious mask: the real Layman has leaked through. As I have often stated: its incredible how much the ego strives to be sublime.

Toto

Do you have some new information from Doherty? There are no updates on his web site.

I would like to get away from criticizing Layman or his style, and stick to the issues. The debate has not progressed recently because a lot of people (including Layman) have been on vacation.