capnkirk

Paul's understanding of "the Christ" stems exclusively from visions. He never met Jesus in the flesh; he apparently wasn't hired by the High Priest until after Jesus' execution. Any knowledge he may have acquired about an earthly Jesus must have come from his "interrogations" of Jesus' followers. Please note: When I say Historical Jesus (HJ), I am referring to a historical human being, not a divine savior. I reserve the term JC (Jesus Christ) for when I refer to the latter. In fact, as you know, I don't accept that there ever was a JC, either in the flesh or in Paul's visions, but Paul did, and it is sometimes necessary to invoke the term when talking of Paul's concepts.

Amaleq13

So, in Paul's view, "Jesus Christ" has yet to come to earth? Resurrection appearances are visions like Paul's and, thus, did not count?





PS Sold the house so now I'll have time to finish Maccoby.

capnkirk

In a word "NO", the resurrection appearances did not count in Paul's mind, no more than his own personal visions of JC counted. When Paul speaks of the Lord's Coming, he is referring to an enduring manifestation for the whole world to see and experience; the manifestation heralding the sweeping away of the old order prior to the initiation of the new apocalyptic age.

I DO believe that Paul saw "some" connection between HJ and the resurrected JC. He may well have believed that a human Jesus died and was resurrected as a divine being...making everything that happened before the resurrection irrelevant, but that's just speculation. According to his own account, JC only became "real" for him at his "conversion" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing, so let's not quibble over exact quotations of scripture. Before, he didn't believe; afterwards, he did. Before, JC wasn't real, afterwards, he was.)

P.S. IMHO, the Resurrection appearances in Acts have no more validity than modern-day claims of statues of Mary that cry blood, and visions of saints that appear to children. I believe that "they" believed that what they saw was real, no more. If people in contemporary Europe can convince themselves that they've had a vision, it's hard to believe that in the far more superstitious time of the Roman Empire that such "events" were different in any way except frequency.

Atticus_Finch

I continue to be surprised at people who assert that Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus or the resurrection. Please read I Cor. 15:12-17 here. If Jesus did not live and die then how could he have been resurrected?

Also, the resurrection appearances are very different in nature than those you compare them with. Christ had breakfast with people. He let Thomas touch his wounds. These are very different that seeing the Virgin Mary's face in a reflection on a window. You may choose to believe them or not, but they are quite different.

Regards,

Finch

Gregg

Atticus, while the case for a non-historical Jesus is not difficult to understand, it is a bit complex and a great deal of study is involved. Accepting the idea that Jesus may not have been historical also requires letting go of a number of assumptions (such as the idea that the gospel writers believed they were writing history).

Once you've honestly considered the full case for a non-historical Jesus, it no longer seems so far-fetched. You still don't have to accept it, but perhaps you won't be surprised anymore that some folks (like me) hold this view.

If you're interested in learning more, the link is: www.jesuspuzzle.org.

By the way, Atticus Finch is one of my heroes. If he's one of yours, then I think you're the type of person who will give the case on this site fair and open-minded consideration, and study it in its entirety, before drawing conclusions.

Gregg

capnkirk

First, Atticus, you accuse me unjustly. The opening line of my second paragraph reads: "I DO believe that Paul saw "some" connection between HJ and the resurrected JC. He may well have believed that a human Jesus died and was resurrected as a divine being..." That can hardly count as an assertion that Paul didn't believe in an HJ or his resurrection. Perhaps you are reading more into the meaning of HJ than was present. I DO most ardently contend that Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus "Christ", but that is a different issue entirely.They are different only in the amount of embellishment that has been applied by those whose only access to the actual event was 3rd, 4th, or 200th-hand hearsay.

I don't believe that there ever was a resurrection. At the same time, I have no doubts that there were many first century people who did believe that people could be raised from the dead. Within the constraints of those two firm convictions, there is no other possible interpretation of the "appearances" in Acts than that they HAD NO BASIS IN FACT. The laws of physics have not changed in the past 2000 years, so the apparent cessation of such awesome miracles as raising people from the dead must be attributed to another cause. The cause is 'cause there never were any resurrections in the first place, only stories embellished by superstitious and gullible minds and repeated as fact. It's no different than the evolution of the Flood Myth from a historical local flood event to a fantastic mythological global catastrophe.

Atticus_Finch

Gregg,

I would like to thank you for your reply. Many people on this site, and other like it, are often less than courteous. Far too often those who represent themselves as Christians are the worst offenders. (This is not to suggest that all true Christians are always perfectly courteous, we have bad days as well.) I was encouraged by your reply. Thank you.

I am truly a skeptic at heart (and mind) and that is why I spend a great deal of time (more than I should) reading the posts and the linked materials. I believe that all Christians are called to be skeptics. Paul encouraged the Bereans because they tested his words against the OT and did not accept them simply because they came from him. Likewise, Peter told believers to always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that we hold in Christ. I believe I have honestly looked at the evidence with the eye of a skeptic and remained convinced.

I understand that many reasonable people take the position that there was no HJ or that if there was the myths surrounding him have forever clouded any possibility of knowing what he really believed or taught. My post was really directed at the assertion that Paul did not believe in a HJ. I don't know how anyone can read I Cor. 15 and assert that about Paul. They only reasonable response I can imagine is to assert, as some do, the I Cor. 15 is in whole or in part an interpolation. However, I have never heard a convincing argument to that effect. The argument usually breaks down to I Cor. 15 doesn't fit in with my theory about Paul so therefore it must be an interpolation.

I hope that my reply met with the standard of yours for courtesy and thoughtfulness.

Regards,

Finch

P.S.--with respect to Atticus Finch, he is one of my top two favorite literary characters. The other, if your are interested, is Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings (the one from the books not the vascillating one from the movies).


Edited to fix the Jesus Puzzle link in Gregg's quote.

Mageth

Atticus_Finch et al:

If you're interested in reading an analysis of the Gospels and Paul's writings that addresses an historical Jesus to which various mythological elements were added (e.g. the virgin birth, miracles, and a physical resurrection), explaining the methods used and reasons that this was done (illustrating why the gospels should not be taken as literal, linear accounts), proposes a plausible scenario for what may have happened, and where it probably happened, after the crucifixion to give birth to the Christian sect, how the "metaphorical" legend of Jesus came to be literalized after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and does it from a Christian theological standpoint, see John Shelby Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality?

Now that's one helluva long sentence.

Atticus_Finch

I am no expert in grammar, but I applaud you for the lengh of your apparently grammatically (my spell checker currently causes my computer to crash and I am too lazy right now to find a dictionary so I appologize if this is spelled incorrectly) correct sentence and put out an open challenge for anyone to top it.

Regards,

Finch

Gregg

Yes, 1 Cor. 15 does sound like Paul's talking about an HJ, until you look at it from a different perspective. First, the mystery cults of the time believed quite similar things about their gods. Second, Paul is saying he got the information about Jesus directly from Scripture and revelation. He's not saying that Jesus' historical death and resurrection fulfilled scripture prophecies about these things--he's saying that the scriptures themselves reveal the mystery of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection in a spiritual dimension--much like other dying/rising savior gods of the time.

The appearances are, of course, easily dealt with, since everyone acknowledges that the appearance to Paul was a vision, and Paul says the other "appearances" were just like his. He shows no awareness of a physically resurrected Jesus walking around eating and drinking and touching people, just as he shows no awareness of a physical pre-Resurrection Jesus.

For Paul, Jesus only took on the "likeness," not the actuality, of flesh. In this guise he descended to the lowest level of heaven, where he was put to death by the Archons, the demon rulers of that dimension, who did not recognize him for who he was.It did indeed.

Gregg