Didymus

There was no formal title; I was speaking figuratively. Surely Paul's congregants would have honored Peter, just as Christians do today.

Didymus

Didymus

The question was not how he would have regarded his own opposition to Peter, but how his congregants, assuming they had been steeped in a narrative similar to the gospels, would have regarded such insolence. After all, Peter supposedly received his commission directly from God Incarnate, and, unlike Paul, he received his with witnesses present.

Didymus

GakuseiDon

Two problems there. On this topic: What did Jesus tell Peter to do when eating with gentiles? Nothing AFAIK. So Paul may have believed he was in the right when it came to this.

More generally: why do you keep comparing Paul's narrative with the gospels' narratives? Is anyone here arguing that the gospels are all literally true? It seems whenever any discussion comes up about Paul's Jesus, it is always to compare with the all-singing and dancing Gospel Son of God. It might make it easier to score points, but if the other person isn't arguing for that then you are only burning strawmen.

Geetarmoore

If we strictly look at only Paul's version of Jesus, outside of the historical context of the Gospel accounts, then it is clear (to me) that Jesus is a spiritual plane entity. The only thread you have in the authentic letters of Paul to actually place Jesus on the earth is the use of 'brother' in regards to James. A thin thread it is, since as has been discussed, Paul doesn't mean 'blood relative' in any other situation when he uses versions the word.

The HJ'ers are the ones who are keen on rectifying Paul with the Gospel accounts, IMO. To me, the only way to reconcile them is to see the natural progression from Paul's invention of Jesus Christ, to an eventually history creating Markan Gospel.

GakuseiDon

What do you mean by "spiritual plane entity"?

I think there is a lot more than that. "Born of a woman", "seed of David", from "the tribe of Judah" (in Hebrews). TedM had a good list at one stage. If you removed the Gospels from the equation, I think we would still get an idea of a Jesus who lived and died on earth.

Sure, some are. So comparing Paul's Jesus to the Gospels' Jesus is reasonable in those cases. But others aren't.

J-D

I don't contend that people don't have visions, or that visions are not a plausible part of an explanation of the development of a religion. In this particular case, what I'm saying is that if the visions are of a kind that inspires the idea of a purely spiritual Messiah, then that is the kind of account that has, I think, the kind of problem I was talking about.What makes attempts at focus 'premature'? When should one attempt to focus?

It's not that I have a problem with the idea of beginning with a general overview before descending to details. But I do think that one of the legitimate tests of a general overview account is whether it's of the kind that is capable of being translated into a detailed version. If there's no possible way of producing a detailed account, I think that means the general overview isn't tenable. (I'm not saying that that has been demonstrated in this case, only that it's a legitimate test.)

J-D

Firstly, it depends on the exact details of what is alleged about the alleged appearances. A report today of an encounter with a resurrected John Kenneth Galbraith would only make sense as a reference to the historical John Kenneth Galbraith. On the other hand, a report today of an encounter with a resurrected Castor and Polydeuces would not require the supposition of a historical Castor and Polydeuces to make sense of it. But secondly, I am not contending that the alleged appearances do require a historical Jesus to explain them. I do, however, contend that there is more to be explained than just the alleged resurrection appearances. They are only one part of the data which leads me to incline, at present, to the hypothesis of a flesh-and-blood Jesus.If you see strong but not conclusive arguments favouring a historical Jesus, then I don't think our conclusions are far apart.You still have a position where people switch from model A (incarnate Messiah) to model B (exclusively spiritual Messiah), and then back from model B to model A, and all reference to the first switch-over is purged from the record. Which I suppose may be possible, but does seem to ask for some sort of further explanation.

Geetarmoore

Where does Paul know Jesus from? Earthly meetings, or spiritual 'visual' meetings?

Do you reject biblical scholarship that takes the book of Hebrews out of the Pauline epistles?

I think it's reasonable in all cases, if Paul's Jesus is in fact supposed to be the same as the Gospel version of Jesus.

Sparrow

Although I am admittedly not a scholar in this area, it seems to me that these attributes could apply to a spiritual only being. Even if one grants that they do refer to a fleshly being, what specific biographical details does it yield? How does one connect this description unequivocally to a specific person who lived in a specific time and place? It seems to me that the 'idea of a Jesus who lived and died on earth' might be more in presuppositions than in the text.

As an aside, the phrase 'born of a woman' puzzles me. What options was the writer excluding by specifying that the messiah was 'born of a woman'?


There are more people reading these words than are participating in writing them. It's not clear that all of them accept the general consensus of modern biblical scholarship (now where was that published, officially?) regarding the New Testament. I just finished reading the transcript of the March 2006 debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman wherein Craig not only claims the four canonical gospels plus Peter as 5 independent accounts, but claims there are documents that date to within 18 months of the death of Jesus. He argues the resurrection as the only possible explanation of an empty tomb, discounting any theft or other movement of the corpse as impossible. remember that these people take the KJV as a completely accurate translation (if they even acknowledge that it was translated) with the thought that 'if it was good enough for St. Peter, then it's good enough for me'. It seems we need to remind our audience regularly, especially for the latecomers who might not have read all 26 preceding pages, of where we are.

J-D

Obviously it's not showing respect for Peter's authority. On the contrary, it's deliberately and consciously subverting Peter's authority. In the internal conflicts of early Christianity, Paul appears as a highly partisan figure, and his accounts should therefore be suspected of extensive partisan bias, and scrutinised for the sort of distortion that flows from such bias, like de-emphasising inconvenient historical facts.