Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 07-05-2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Since your comment seems a comment on something ynquirer has said, and provided that ynquirer is me, may I ask what your comment on what I said means?

The fact that they appear to be theological writings rather than historical writings, does not tell us whether or not Paul believed Jesus was historical. I think Don is trying to establish what Paul believed regarding Jesus, rather than what is historical regarding Jesus.

gurugeorge · 07-05-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

In fact, the part the "argument from silence" plays in the mythicist line of thought is merely suggestive. It suggests that thinking "out of the box" of standard biblical scholarship might produce a more coherent, less "epicyclic" explanation. IOW, it suggests the following idea: what if we take what Paul, Hebrews, etc., say as more or less sufficient, coherent, and silence-free? What do those texts look like, if we assume that they aren't silent about anything?

I know that some of these are controversial (e.g. James as "Lord's brother"), some posters here would regard one or more passages as interpolations, and some passages may fit a "spiritual" Jesus as well as a historical Jesus (e.g. crucified by "authorities"). Still, regardless of whether Paul was referring to a historical Jesus or a mythical Jesus in those passages, does the information above consist of a "silence"? Should we be surprised that Paul didn't offer more about Jesus? Remember, we are assuming that the Gospels didn't exist at this stage, so no fair comparing to what is in the Gospels for this exercise.

What Clive said. There's no silence at all, but a fair abundance of information - about an entity that looks totally and utterly mythical.

The clue is in the first two bits, and in the fact that many of his traits can be tied to Scripture.

GakuseiDon · 07-05-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Since your comment seems a comment on something ynquirer has said, and provided that ynquirer is me, may I ask what your comment on what I said means?

The fact that they appear to be theological writings rather than historical writings, does not tell us whether or not Paul believed Jesus was historical. I think Don is trying to establish what Paul believed regarding Jesus, rather than what is historical regarding Jesus.

That's right. Paul arguably does give us some information about Jesus, regardless of whether he believed Jesus was historical or not. From this:
1. What is Paul silent on, and how do we know?
2. Where should Paul have put that information?

Again, I remind both HJ/MJ that we shouldn't be trying to read the Gospels into this.

GakuseiDon · 07-05-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

What Clive said. There's no silence at all, but a fair abundance of information - about an entity that looks totally and utterly mythical.

The clue is in the first two bits, and in the fact that many of his traits can be tied to Scripture.

So, there is no silence? Or there is only silence if we assume a historical Jesus? If the latter, what is the silence, how do you know, and where should the authors have put that information?

GakuseiDon · 07-05-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Now, whether Paul was referring to a historical Jesus or a mythical Jesus in those passages, does the information above consist of a "silence"?

I think it IS silent on what is most important - what it was that made Jesus 'the christ'. Paul gives us no clue as to why Jesus was so special, which is extremely odd, and is IMHO the whole reason for the controversy.

Really? Paul seems to regard Jesus as a pre-existent being, who though equal in some way to God, came in lowly form and was obedient until death. That seems to be the crux of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

BTW, 1 cor 7:10 is derived from Mal 2:16, in which the exact same 'thus saith the lord' language is used. "The Lord" refers to YHWH, not to Jesus.

Likewise, 1 thes 4:15 is OT teaching from 1 kings 13:17. I don't see this as a claim of 'jesus said', so we are left with Paul making clear references to the OT, when a reference to Jesus on the subjects would have been more compelling to a Christian audience.

Yes, that's possible. How about "Jesus gave commandments (1 Thes 4.2: "for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.")

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

If you exclude the passages that are under contention historically, (such as Gal 4:4), and remove from your list that which is obviously just a reference to the OT, you aren't left with much.

In this case, I'm not sure removing an item just because it is a reference to the OT is warranted. It is still information about Jesus, though the source is the OT.

gurugeorge · 07-05-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

What Clive said. There's no silence at all, but a fair abundance of information - about an entity that looks totally and utterly mythical.

The clue is in the first two bits, and in the fact that many of his traits can be tied to Scripture.

So, there is no silence? Or there is only silence if we assume a historical Jesus? If the latter, what is the silence, how do you know, and where should the authors have put that information?

There's no silence about what is obviously a mythical entity - just look at the list ferchrissakes

Why the hell should anybody assume that he was talking about a historical entity? There is no evidence in Paul whatsoever that Cephas or any of the Pillars had an "appearance" of an entity whom they had known as a human being. None. Not one iota.

All Paul is saying is that the Messiah, the Anointed One - an obviously mythical Jewish entity - has already been and done his work, as foretold (in his view and presumably the view of Cephas, etc.) in Scripture - the "historical" references amount to fulfillments of Scripture, basically (with perhaps a bit of added colour), and he says he and a bunch of other people have grokked this idea and had visions of this entity.

He's just shifting The Anointed One from the future to the past. The time shift doesn't make Paul's version of The Anointed One any more historical than the Jewish version.

If you look at it outside the Gospel context, it's really blazingly obvious.

GakuseiDon · 07-05-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

There's no silence about what is obviously a mythical entity - just look at the list ferchrissakes

Why the hell should anybody assume that he was talking about a historical entity? There is no evidence in Paul whatsoever that Cephas or any of the Pillars had an "appearance" of an entity whom they had known as a human being. None. Not one iota.

So, assuming a historical entity, are you saying that this is something that we would have expected Paul to have talked about? Why do you think this, and where should Paul have mentioned it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

If you look at it outside the Gospel context, it's really blazingly obvious.

Yes, I'd like to keep this outside the Gospel context. For some reason, it is very easy to read the Gospels into Paul, but I'm trying to avoid this here.

spamandham · 07-05-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I think it IS silent on what is most important - what it was that made Jesus 'the christ'. Paul gives us no clue as to why Jesus was so special, which is extremely odd, and is IMHO the whole reason for the controversy.

Really? Paul seems to regard Jesus as a pre-existent being, who though equal in some way to God, came in lowly form and was obedient until death. That seems to be the crux of it.

I suppose you could make that argument, but it seems just as straightforward a read to me that Paul views Jesus as a spiritual being (the Holy Spirit probably) who dwells within ordinary humans (such as Paul himself for example), rather than a spiritual being who took an independent human form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yes, that's possible. How about "Jesus gave commandments (1 Thes 4.2: "for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.")

I don't see how this supports the idea of Paul's belief in an earthly Jesus. Paul claims to have received a vision from Jesus. 1 Thes 4:2 is consistent with that claim. Continue reading a few sentences further, to verse 8 "So if you refuse to accept my teaching, you turn your back on God, not on people. God gives you his Holy Spirit." Notice that Paul is claiming this as HIS teaching? Paul seems to view himself as the chosen one of god who speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit (who he seems to equate with Jesus).

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

In this case, I'm not sure removing an item just because it is a reference to the OT is warranted. It is still information about Jesus, though the source is the OT.

Yes, but if it's merely a reference to the OT, it tends to support the idea that Paul thought Jesus was a spiritual being, revealed to Paul via vision through the OT, rather than a spiritual being who took form as an independent human.

ynquirer · 07-05-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The fact that they appear to be theological writings rather than historical writings, does not tell us whether or not Paul believed Jesus was historical.

Thanks.

If you are right, the mythicist inference from the theological outlook of Paul’s writings that he didn’t believe Jesus was historical - that would be as unwarranted as the conclusion that, say, Thomas Aquinas didn‘t believe so either. Wouldn’t it?

gurugeorge · 07-05-2007, 02:52 PM

Now let's do GDon's trick with Hebrews (RSV):

Christ was faithful over God's house as a son.

Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"; as he says also in another place, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek."

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek.

Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Christ, [...] through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God [...].

Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

[...] when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure. Then I said, `Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,' as it is written of me in the roll of the book."

Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek.

Jesus the surety of a better covenant.

[...] he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Jesus [is] the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

[...] when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.

Again, a clearly mythical entity, with no shred of historicity whatsoever.

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

07-05-2007, 02:52 PM	#20
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	Now let's do GDon's trick with Hebrews (RSV): Christ was faithful over God's house as a son. Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"; as he says also in another place, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek." In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek. Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Christ, [...] through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God [...]. Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. [...] when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure. Then I said, `Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,' as it is written of me in the roll of the book." Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek. Jesus the surety of a better covenant. [...] he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself. Jesus [is] the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. [...] when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Again, a clearly mythical entity, with no shred of historicity whatsoever.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.