badger3k

I know this goes back a bit, but I've asked before about this. Let's take John the Baptist. What evidence besides the bible and Josephus do we have that he existed? I know there is that cave discovered recently which may be related to a Baptist cult, but any other evidence? In other forums, my request is usually met with silence.

For myself, I have no idea of those individuals existed or not. I'd definitely be skeptical of the last one, given the obvious exaggeration of the army. Doesn't mean they existed, doesn't mean they didn't. Personally I don't have enough information to conclude anything.

spin

Let's grant for a moment you are right. You are only shifting the burden further into the unknown. How can you use his statements as evidence for history?


spin

spin

To understand my distinction between "real" and "historical", here is how the two notions line up (same color is same notion):

real	historical
	not historical
not real

Not all real people are historical, ie lots of people haven't left traces in records from their era. Not all non-historical people are not real, ie despite the fact that many people haven't left traces in the records, they were in fact real. Think for example of the soldiers who fought for Mark Antony at Actium. Obviously real, but we know nothing of them.

Real and historical are not the same notion and they do not map to each other semantically.


spin

Amaleq13

Why waste time with irrelevant (ped)antics?

I didn't say he called it "his gospel" but, as you've demonstrated with this quote alone, he clearly took ownership of it.

Then again, what does this mean from Romans 2:16?

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

Does "my gospel" mean something else in the original language or is it as it appears (ie an explicit claim of ownership)?

Not "his" just specially given to him by Christ? That doesn't appear to come from the text at all.

Why imagine Paul is so limited in his meaning when referring to having Jesus revealed in him by God? That seems rather obtuse.

Amaleq13

He had knowledge prior to having knowledge revealed to him. Do you imagine what was revealed to him was what he already knew? That makes no sense.

Then you are alone because I've only read scholars offering speculative specifics for the very general "reason" provided in that verse.

How could you possibly know that? There is nothing in the verse to support such an assertion.

We don't actually know why or on what authority Paul persecuted or even what form that persecution took.

dog-on

I don't see how.

He specifically cites his revelation and specifically cites scripture as part of his argument.

What he doesn't cite is a recently crucified Jew.

How is this "sneaking" my conclusion in?

dog-on

We did and found it lacking.

spin

This is irony from an inveterate hairsplitter. Just like:

See what I mean? You deliberately made a distinction with "his gospel" which sounds good but cannot be substantiated.

Which is it to be: either it is "his gospel" and your earlier whinge is sophistry or you're just trying to cover your bets?

Given to him by god. God revealed Jesus to him. That is plain. But it is "the gospel", "my gospel" (same sense as "my language" or "my football team"), "our gospel" (eg 2 Cor 4:3). These seem to be interchangeable. So the "his" of your original statement is still as inappropriate as it was then.

Stop being rude. And you are not responding to the issue. God revealed his son. That is specific and your humming and haaing won't make the specificity go away. Paul claimed that god revealed/made known [apokaluptw] Jesus to him, ie before this, god hadn't revealed/made know Jesus to Paul.


spin

spin

Of course. You've created a strawman, so naturally it doesn't make sense.

Paul knew about lots of things before his revelation. He knew about the conservative Jewish religion of his upbringing. He knew about messianism and messianic expectation. He probably would have known about Johannine messianism. He would probably have known stuff about Greek mystery religions, especially if he was as Acts reports from Tarsus, a zone where Mithra was popular. Mystery religions are about saviors, just as Paul's Jesus was a savior (touted as a Jewish messiah) and what a natural name for a Jewish savior, "Jah saves". What more do you want him to have known?


spin

Solo

That's what I meant by "mythical" : unconnected to a historical person. I think it could be argued (and has been after a fashion by G.A.Wells in his last two books) that Paul's Christ was a generalized persona of the spritualist elite (the elect, or saints of God) and not the historical preacher of Q presumably venerated by a faction of the Nazorean church. In my scenario, Paul's relationship to the Jesus of the "pillars" in Jerusalem can be summarized thus : the authority is not (the recent) flesh-and-blood Jesus that you believe was done in by the "lawless men" in power but the resurrected Jesus that came after man faithfully died as a servant of God for a kingdom of God that he was led to believe (as you are after him) can be brought into this world.

But hear me out - if Paul was pulling this out of thin air, as opposed to some strangely, cosmologically, apprehended minor historical event - would it have had the effect it did ?

As for the law, Paul did not declare it null but superseded by faith in the new covenant. And again, if Paul himself persecuted the church prior to his conversion, the observances were not the primary cause of the uproar.

Regards,
Jiri