Diogenes the Cynic

Thanks for that link, Dave. It's a very intriguing site. I'm not sure I agree with all of the leaps in his arguments but he seems pretty well grounded in scholarship. I'd like to spend some more time poring through his articles. I like what I see so far.

Dave Roberts

Be prepared to spend a lot of time there.

I think I know what you mean about "leaps", I view it as 1+y most likely = x, as in his writings that I linked to on Barabbas. I don't have a problem with it, since the informations available don't agree with each other.

This of course is difficult when dealing with a mix of myth and real history story.

Vivisector

I will readily agree on the scarcity of identifiable, reliable "history" in the Gospel stories, and I'd up you one and add Acts.

I need to clarify. My impression is that, earlier, you challenged my reference to a Jesus ministry. My previous post was an effort to describe how I view a ministry as the best explanation for what Paul does say about the James group (and, for that matter, the very few things he does seem to know about Jesus).

Yes, it begins that way, because the resurrection is the hook. The resurrection is the reason you should take them seriously; it's the validation of other things they believe, and the things they want you to do. I'm intrigued by your suggestion and interested in seeing more, but I really struggle with seeing a belief in resurrection alone as sufficient motivation for an evangelistic movement. I mean, what's to sell? If all that's required to be a member of the club is to believe in the resurrection of some unknown Jewish guy, how can the movement effect any sort of substantive changes?

This is an explanation, and I concede its possibility. It does cast Cephas as a very scholarly sort, as opposed to his depiction in the Gospels (I'm not assuming the truth of the Gospel depictions, only noting that a scholarly Cephas wouldn't explain them). It also requires him to interpret Jewish Scripture in, as far as I can tell, a totally unprecedented way. It seems this would be exceptionally difficult; the standard model has the Gospel authors starting with something and working backward, scouring the Jewish Scripture for supporting material, and this seems to have been difficult enough for them. But Cephas would have had to work forward, toward nothing, to arrive at his belief in a sacrificed and resurrected Messiah.

My difficulty here is the one above; what is the general character of the vision? Would it be enough, for example, for Peter to "see" some individual saying to him, "Peter, you're right. The Scriptures say that the last Messiah must be sacrificed and resurrected. Furthermore, I'm the one. You never heard of me, and I never did anything of note, but I was crucified and resurrected after three days. Now go and spread the good news." I'd hate to have to sell this!

I'm sorry, but I'm not following; can you elaborate?

This is a little hard to argue against, obviously. And I suspect that if I asked, "How did Paul know he was the Son of God?" you'd reply, "He was the one resurrected." I guess I should ask why Paul would have expected the Son of God to be sacrificed and resurrected in the first place, and what - if any - additional attributes would Paul have expected of the Son of God?

Related to above discussion.

I agree.

The James, brother of the lord reference divides us again!

This seems to hinge on the true nature of Christ and the disguise. What would you consider to have been a suitable (to Paul) disguise?

And I'm suggesting that the reason Pilate was well known (his brutality) makes him a bad choice for a fiction of this variety.

Cheers,

V.

Amaleq13

All that Paul says about the Jerusalem group is that the "pillars" experienced the Risen Christ before he did. What, specifically, do you find Paul saying about Jesus that you think requires knowledge of a ministry? The few teachings he attributes to Christ appear to be post-resurrection revelations.

What "other things"? You seem to me to be reading these "other things" into Paul's gospel.


It seems to have been sufficient for Paul.

Paul describes behavioral changes associated with belief in the Risen Christ and does not feel compelled to connect these to any living ministry. The behavior Christians are to emulate is the humble subservience and love exemplified by Christ's sacrifice.

Regardless of how we conceptualize the origin of Christianity, a unique interpretation of Jewish Scripture will be involved. I would not say "totally unprecedented" except with regard to the specific details. Scattered precedents for all the bits and pieces of Christian theology can be fairly easily found (e.g. dying/resurrected godmen, Wisdom literature, pre-existent Son, Logos). It only required someone to be motivated to put them all together in a unique fashion. I think we also have sufficient evidence to suggest that reconceptualizing the Messiah was not unique to Christianity (ie Dead Sea Scrolls).

[added later] If even half of what Vorkosigan suggests is true of the authorship of Mark, Cephas' work seems minor in comparison.

Not toward "nothing" but toward a new understanding of the Messiah. How hard would it have been if, for example, his first hint of such a new understanding came from Isaiah's Suffering Servant?

Yet that is precisely what Paul did!

It seems to me that the success of this new movement largely hinged on the conversion of James given his established reputation. That, alone, would have given the belief credibility.

Sorry, I thought you understood that I obtained the idea that the pre-sacrifice Christ was devoid of power and reputation from Paul (Phil2:6-8).

Apparently, Paul did not accept this notion "in the first place" and only came to accept it after spending time persecuting believers.

To think that such a brief, unique, and inherently problematic phrase could cause so much trouble.

According to Paul it was taking on the appearance of a lowly servant. It seems to me that the point was to appear as the exact opposite of the pre-existent Son of God to fool the archons into executing him.

I agree that it makes the story far less credible as a record of history when considered critically but I question the assumption that this was a goal of the author. I'm not convinced that the first version of the story was primarily intended as a conversion tool but, even if I assume it was, I think your doubts greatly overestimate the critical consideration of the audience. After all, did any of Christianity's early opponents know enough to question the depiction?

Chili

They were not pacifists but pulling the right punches as Zealot is more effective than acting like charismatic bullies in a china shop.

If the story is myth it takes place in the mind of one man to make it myth. The attachment to history is effectively done to create followers who can look into history to both 'gather and scatter' but proclaim the name of Jesus nonetheless.

The twelve apostles were at one time the shepherds that were operating in the mind of Joseph where they became the apostles after the conversion of Joseph (metanoia), now called Jesus.

This event landed him in Galilee where Nazareth was the 'large city' that contained Judaism in the mind of Joseph (hint, little Nazareth is little conversion, big Nazareth is massive conversion). Out of this city Mary was the womb of Joseph who retrieved Jesus to Bethlehem to get 'meat' this time (Bethlaiham, was it? =towards understanding). It is because he was a true Nazorean that he was not a Nazorite for there was no guile in Nathanael who was the son-of-God (the fig tree is the equivalent of Nazareth) who was reborn into the conscious mind of Joseph (often referred to as Jerusalem).

Myth is real and does not have to take the Nazarite vow, or any vow. This comprehension is what made the apostles able to throw the right punches at the right time.

Macbeth was also a Galilean but of his own will because he wanted to "be king hereafter." MacBeth was an apostle short and acted like a bull in a china shop where 'it' got the best of him or agony would not prevail. He was competing with lady Macbeth, who hath no name but lady MacBeth to show that the Nazorite vow was too much for him. Coriolanus was also a Galilean
but with the right number of apostles and therefore the proper female structure operating from behind the scene to which only he was loyal instead.

Chili

It is bright and early enough here this morning, Sheshbazzar, to suggest that the clothes they rent was to change their identity as former pursuer of worldly riches to the new pursuer of heavenly richess. It is this same cloak, now rent, that must be annihilated on the inside as well for it is the cloak that makes the man and the man is human in the image of the cloak he wears. The mandate to succeed is the new cloak Jesus wore that never would be rent lest he failed and became the final impostor as Galilean.

Kryten

Yes, Jesus was a criminal according to Roman law. By claiming to be a King he was clearly in opposition to the authority of Tiberius Caesar, and Caesar's puppet Herod. This was seen as treason. And in fact is why most of those killed were not killed for religious reasons; it was treason. This is obvious in the famous letter from Pliny to Trajan.

Chili

"Pilate said: 'I find no case against him.' 'We have our own law' the Jews responded and according to that law he must die.'"

Clearly this show a distinction between Jewish law and Roman Law wherein Jewish law convicts and Romans act upon the verdict of Jewish law. Jewish law was for the conviction of sin to say that it convicts Jesus the Jew but not Jesus the son of man.

Vivisector

I'm trying to learn more about what you think of the "pillars," so I have something to focus my thoughts on.

1. What do you think Paul objected to so much that he persecuted the "church of God?"
2. Who appointed the others who were apostles before Paul and/or "the Twelve?"
3. Why did Paul visit with Peter?
4. Why would Paul need to ground-truth his gospel with "the leaders?"

I agree that if we go on what Paul himself says, there is very little that would require his knowledge of an earthly ministry for Jesus. There's a nice summary of Paul/Jesus connections/parallels here, but many of them can - as you pointed out - be attributed to Paul's personal revelation. There might be some merit to 1 Cor 7:10, 1 Cor 9:14 and Rom 14:14 as originating from the activity of HJ.

"Other things" was in the context of your/my personal experiences with witnessing. Applied to Paul's writings, though, you have a powerful point. Apart from faith in Christ's crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice, Paul seems to explicitly require very little of his converts, and still less that requires an origin in a ministry of HJ. In many of Paul's letters, though, he writes to reinforce, clarify, encourage, and provide additional guidance. I get the sense that Paul is not following his original sales pitch so much as he refers back to it, almost as if to say, "Remember what I told you?" My question is, do you think that Paul's letters provide a complete picture of how he originally persuaded these people to "convert?" And if so, do you find it realistic that he would have succeeded to the degree apparent if Paul was preaching some Jesus who was totally insignificant in life, with only Paul's own personal revelation as validation of his (Paul's) gospel? I keep coming back to the idea of it being a hard sell, though I realize that I need to be careful not to retroject postmodern skepticism into the problem.

Even so, it required Cephas to assemble all of these pieces - some Greek, some Jewish, some mixed - to arrive at a belief that would sell without being attached to any particular person who did any particular thing of note during life. This seems to be no small accomplishment to me.

You've got my attention, and I'm certainly mulling this over. Again, though, I can see how one can start with a crucified HJ and work backwards to the Suffering Servant; working forward seems a different proposition. Was this a common interpretation of Isaiah?

Okay, I'm back with you now. To your thinking, would the Christ hymn negate a service-oriented ministry or a Ghandi-like individual?

I didn't mean to imply that Paul accepted it on first exposure. Rather, what would have been Paul's scriptural basis for belief in a Christ who would be sacrificed and resurrected after an obscure life?

Yes, small but significant!

Seems a two-stage process would be more believable; timing placed in Pilate's era because of his brutality, apologetic reworking later. Then again, the Pilate tradition could have originated from the historical event :huh:

Amaleq13

I assume that obtaining converts to a belief in a crucified and resurrected Messiah was considered objectionable to the Jewish establishment. This seems to be true whether or not Jesus was historical.

The Risen Christ did so by appearing to them.

Apparently to make sure what he was preaching to the gentiles was OK.

Paul tells us he felt compelled to check with them after preaching for three years because of a revelation from Christ. We can only speculate about unspoken motivations but it seems reasonable to wonder if questions from his audience about the legitimacy of his teachings brought about this revelation.

1Cor7:10

It would helpful if Paul was more explicit about when and where this information was obtained from the Lord.

Is Paul referring to a living Jesus when he refers to "the Lord" or to God via Scripture?

1Cor9:14

Again, Paul's lack of specificity makes it impossible to tell whether this is something a living Jesus spoke to followers or something the Risen Christ revealed to the earlier apostles.

Romans 14:14

If we assume that this is something the living Jesus taught then we must also assume that his former disciples in Jerusalem ignored it since this issue seems to have been a source of tension. In addition to the more obvious difficulty of original followers disobeying Christ's teaching yet continuing his ministry, you have to wonder where Paul would have heard about it.

Since we apparently don't even have all of Paul's letters, I don't see how such a conclusion is reasonable. OTOH, that's all we've got in the way of actual evidence so anything else would be unsubstantiated speculation.

No but Paul apparently didn't rely solely on claims of personal revelation. He allegedly also performed healings to establish his legitimacy.

Oh, I agree that it is an impressive accomplishment. His name, alone, suggests that familiarity with Greek culture is not an unreasonable assumption.

To my knowledge, the figure was most commonly interpreted as representing Israel as a whole. Interpreting the figure as the Messiah seems to be unique to Christianity but it doesn't seem to require much of a leap to move from "representing Israel" to "representing Israel's Savior".

Not that I can see. What it does seem to contradict is the notion of a ministry in which Jesus exhibited supernatural power.

Unfortunately, Paul doesn't specific the source of his beliefs except a vague reference to some of them being "according to Scripture". The NASB suggests that he found scriptural support for the sacrifice at Is53:5-12 and for the resurrection at Ps16:8-ff.

I think the "standard model" is easier to understand but it seems to me to utterly fail to explain why there appears to be such a total disconnect between the ministry and the post-resurrection gospel or why the Gospel depiction of the ministry lacks anything unique except content that seems to have been retrojected from later beliefs. In the end, I consider the evidence too much of a mess to allow a reliable conclusion either way. That doesn't stop me from having fun defending the minority position, though.