Doug Shaver

How confident are you that the empty tomb story is historical? If you think it is probably true, why?

Ben C Smith

I agree that Paul was an exception, a big one, to the general rule that those granted the visions had known and loved Jesus. (Compare Acts 1.21-22 with Acts 10.36-41 for a succinct statement of that general rule.)

You and I, of course, disagree on Mark 14.28; 16.7.

1 Corinthians 15.3-8 predates Mark, IMHO, and was written by someone who had no reason to invent resurrection appearances for the particular people to whom he grants them in those verses.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Well, I am still making up my mind on that. I am hoping to get hold of Dale Allison pretty soon; maybe that will help me make up my mind one way or another.

Ben.

TedM

I think that verse has been taken way too literally. Obviously Paul did know about Jesus prior to his revelation, since he was busy persecuting his followers.

ted

Ben C Smith

Jeffrey, I doubt Earl was trying to say that Barrett thinks Paul did not believe in an historical Jesus. I think what he was trying to say is that Barrett acknowledges that Paul is not alluding to an historical Jesus in this verse.

However, I can see where you might have derived the notion that Earl was claiming Barrett as a fellow mythicist. Earl posted:

Among others, C. K. Barrett (Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.170-1) recognizes that the second “according to the flesh” does not describe an attribute of Christ, but Paul’s action of “known,” and thus “the view, based on a false interpretation of this verse, that Paul had no interest in the Jesus of history, must be dismissed.” It is the attitude of humans toward other humans, and toward Christ, which has been filtered through “the flesh”—their own—and Christ as an entirely spiritual figure remains unaffected.

It is not clear from this quote where the paraphrased opinion of Barrett ceases. I suspect it is supposed to continue through...:

It is the attitude of humans toward other humans, and toward Christ, which has been filtered through “the flesh”—their own....

...but I doubt it was meant to include...:

...and Christ as an entirely spiritual figure remains unaffected.

...which I take as Earl himself ruminating on the implications for his own thesis.

Reminds of how some take Mark 7.19b as reflecting what Jesus himself said and meant while others take 7.19a as the end of what Jesus was saying on the topic and 7.19b as merely a Marcan interpretation of what Jesus said.

The paragraph could be worded better so as to more clearly distinguish between Barrett and Doherty, but I doubt Earl was trying to intentionally mislead the reader into thinking that Barrett was a mythicist.

Just my view.

Ben.

Didymus

I thought the subject here was history, not faith; the possible, not the impossible. With apologies to Doug, let me revise his question beyond recognition: What did Jesus actually do that convinced some people that he was of a divine nature?

(Note that that is not the same as asking, What was Jesus believed to have done?)

It is self-evident that, if Paul was convinced by it, Paul must have known about it.

Tom

Ben C Smith

My answer was not intended to decide between the two. I was answering as I think Paul would have answered: Jesus was resurrected.

My answer is still that Jesus actually would not have had to do anything, though doing something could certainly contribute.

But the question itself is about belief: Why was Jesus believed to be divine? All I have to do to believe that you are a criminal is to believe that you committed a crime. You may be utterly innocent, but it is my belief in your crime that will lead me to believe you are a criminal.

Likewise, if Jesus was believed to have risen from the dead, then that belief might have led to people believing he was divine. Is that not what Paul says in Romans 1.4? (Paul believes that) Jesus was declared to be the son of God with power by the resurrection.

The question then becomes: Why was Jesus believed to have resurrected? That is a question I am still in the process of trying to answer.

If it turns out that Jesus was also known to have said or done divine things during his lifetime, then of course that will have contributed to perceptions of his divinity.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Ben, here's what I preceded:

"In addition, Paul has some implication that this was not a significant belief of the Christianity he was familiar with as he explicitly indicates that his knowledge of Jesus was not received from any man. Our next best source "Mark" Confirms that the people who knew Jesus did not have any Visitations of a resurrected Jesus."

with:

"A Position that Jeff does need to take seriously is that some early Christians camped out at where they thought Jesus bought the Sower's Farm to receive Visions of the recently/long departed (to parts unknown) and that said Visions contributed to some extent in the Visitation Myths of Subsequent Christianity. That these Christians didn't know where Jesus bought it actually contributed to the Empty Tomb Story (Understand Dear Reader?).

Ben would appear to be wrong about these Types of visions originally being received by those who knew Jesus. Our earliest known Source of resurrected Jesus Vision, Paul, did not know Jesus."

So the "Visions" I refer to in what you excerpted are the non Historical Revelations of my preceding paragraph. Do I go Jeff Gibson on you and claim you have Selective quotation, misreading, and misrepresentation of sources or do I just Clarify in my next Post, Possibly Saving hundreds of years and thousands of lives?

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_15

1 Corinthians 15:5 (ASV)

"and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve;

6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep;

7 then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles;

8 and last of all, as to the [child] untimely born, he appeared to me also."


JW:
Let's assume this is Original. My guess is that Paul is referring to Historical Visions here and not Revelations:

1) The Visions follow supposed History.

2) If you use "appeared" the Implication is Historical unless you qualify as Revelation (just like Paul does for himself).

3) The 500 at once sounds intended to be Historical, yes?

My Point young brother is I Am pointing out that we don't really have specific evidence that Christianity was started by people who knew Jesus and had Revelations of him as resurrected. Paul didn't know the Guy, "Mark" doesn't claim any Type of Visitation and I take 1 C 15 as Historical claim and not Revelation (except for Paul of course).

You may be right that Orthodox Christianity was started by people who had Revelation visions of a resurrected Jesus but my guess is that these were people who didn't generally know Jesus. The people who knew Jesus, Peter, James, El All, were teaching Q, the Life of Jesus as opposed to X, the Death of Jesus.

Regarding your Faith that per "Mark" Peter saw the resurrected Jesus apparently going through Virgin Records at the Galilee Mall I'll remind you yet again of the absurdity that Peter would be connected with a Gospel primarily trying to convince people that Peter Witnessed a Resurrected Jesus and neglect to mention that Peter Witnessed a Resurrected Jesus and in fact going through more Tortuous Literary effort than "Mark's" Jesus suffered on the Stauros to communicate that Peter did not Witness a Resurrected Jesus. 1 C 15 seems to be very important to you. Why wasn't it important to "Mark"?

This all reminds me of the classic Rock snatching scene in Kung Jew. When you are fast enough to snatch the meaning of the ending of "Mark" from my hand, you will know. In the meantime I'm afraid that Spin will have to taunt you a second timeah.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

I see what you are trying to say now. I misunderstood you the first time through.

I disagree, of course, but at least now I am reading you correctly (I think).

It is not faith. It is Mark 14.28 and Mark 16.7, among other verses.

I think it (or the tradition it represents) was more important to Mark than you suppose. In fact, I agree with what Amaleq13 said on the original thread about Mark probably being unable to ignore 1 Corinthians 15.3-8. If Mark intended to overturn this earlier tradition, it would take more than mere silence on his part.

I take Mark 14.28 and 16.7 as being more or less in line with 1 Corinthians 15.3-8. Of course, you regard the first of those as a later addition, and for that position you at least have a modicum of support from papyrus Vindobonensis 2325, as we discussed the first time round.

I doubt I will ever agree with your position on that matter (though I have been wrong on such things before). The kind of evidence that I normally find persuasive in such affairs seems to be lacking, though I admit the missing phrase in Vindobonensis 2325 is a step in the direction of providing that kind of evidence.

Such a one is free to taunt me at his leisure.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
In General I agree that too much weight is given to Extant specific phrases. As a man Paul would have trouble expressing himself at times, change his mind and be dishonest. He's also inheriting a very dishonest argument to make, that Impossible Jesus was prophesied in the Jewish Bible. Another hidden problem is that Extant Paul is priMarily based on what Subsequent Christianity wanted Paul to say rather than what Paul said. Paul Confesses to us that he sometimes told people what they wanted to hear and his Opponents confirm this:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ju...ans_1_text.htm

"But that from the beginning God cared only for the Jews and that He chose them out as his portion, has been clearly asserted not only by Moses and Jesus but by Paul as well; though in Paul's case this is strange. For according to circumstances he keeps changing his views about God, as the polypus changes its colours to match the rocks,23"

As far as Paul "persecuting" Christians I think the Acts story is Fiction as it has Paul going to Damascus to arrest God knows who while Peter/James are going wild where he leaves from (Jerusalem). The "persecuted" I think just means negative attitude towards.

My guess on the timing is Paul didn't know Jesus and wasn't familiar with anyone who did. After his Revelation he joined fellow believers in Jesus, some of whom knew Jesus. The difference is they Preached about the Historical Jesus they knew and Paul Preached about the Impossible Jesus that was Revealed to him. The two did not have to Contradict each other (Historical vs. Resurrected). What I meant in the quote you responded to is when Paul says his knowledge of Jesus was based on Revelation and not from Man, is it means his fellow believers did not tell him of their Revelations, they told him of their Memories.



Joseph