Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-21-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Unless Paul deals with whatever the fuck you are trying to test, you wan't test anything against Paul's writings.

Toto has already shown that he DOES deal with issues that are relevant to a minimal Jesus. The question in each and every case will be whether his manner of dealing with them raises the expectation that he deal with the minimal Jesus in the same context--ie whether the minimal Jesus is highly relevant to the issues he discusses.

I'm glad that you understood that. So far the minimal Jesus from early indications is one that Paul identifies as a man, as having been crucified and as having been resurrected. This has nothing in itself to do with history: we have no way to verify anything that Paul said, what he said was intricately involved in his theology, and, if there was anything ultimately historical in what Paul said, there is no way to individuate it without presupposition.

So you can go with your a priori minimal Jesus and test it by seeing what Paul doesn't tell you about him and everything'll be jim dandy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I don't think you are thinking this through very well. I'm testing a hypothesis against Paul's writings. Paul's writings can help confirm or deny the hypothesis. It's not complicated, but you seem to be making it so and here's a perfect example of that:

Quote:

If Paul provides the earliest material you have, you start with what he says, as there is nothing earlier. What you are doing obviously comes from sources that post-date Paul, so the process you are attempting is anachronous and has no way to relate to what Paul knew. Anything that you say regarding your minimal historical Jesus beyond the fact that Paul thought him a man, that Paul thought him crucified and that Paul believed he was resurrected, seems to be a waste of breath.

1. It doesn't matter where my minimal Jesus came from. It is irrelevant.

Is it as irrelevant as your minimal Jesus? It doesn't matter where you pull this minimal Jesus from. All that matters is whether you can make something out of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

2. If all we can conclude is that Paul's Jesus could have been a man who was crucified and believed resurrected and this is not contradictory to my minimal Jesus, we can conclude that the minimal Jesus I have proposed is consistent with Pauls' writings.

No, you cannot conclude anything of the sort, unless of course by "consistent" you simply mean not contradictory, and then you can make claims such as Jesus was molester of chickens and that would be entirely "consistent" (to use your term) with my molester of chickens Jesus, because Paul doesn't contradict the molester of chickens Jesus model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

However, there are passages that could be seen to relate to my minimal Jesus' LIFE and personhood that could cast doubt on his existence--the preaching aspect, the marriage aspect, perhaps a Doherty-style Jesus aspect, etc. It is THOSE passages that could make this exercise NOT a waste of breath.

If you say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

IF it turns out to be a waste of breath than we might have to conclude that my minimal Jesus is just as well supported as Doherty's Jesus in the sky hypothesis, and it would be high time to give it equal respect or disrespect. Maybe things have changed but in the past the Doherty Jesus seemed to be embraced by the skeptics while my minimal Jesus type was only embraced by a few skeptics. I'm trying to figure out whether that is because the skeptics are letting their own biases guide their conclusions OR whether there are more problems with my hypothesis than there are even with Doherty's hypothesis.

I don't care a fig about Doherty and your foray into infidel land to take potshots at him. You didn't mention Doherty in the OP I responded to. I responded to your anachronistic Jesus to be tested by Paul. Whatever you think you're trying to do, it should be methodologically suspect to anyone and his/her dog.

spin

bacht · 06-21-2010, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Let's assume Jesus was a preacher who did not perform miracles, and who preached of the coming kingdom of God but not of his own resurrection, and that he was arrested and crucified during Passover during Paul's lifetime.

In Paul's letters he talks about Christ in heaven with God, not what he did or said on earth. The Passion has to be read into the texts, there are no details provided.

Quote:

Let's further assume Jesus did not preach about salvation to the Gentiles.

Paul doesn't tell us what Jesus said.

Toto · 06-21-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So now you've just proven to yourself that Jesus was married, throwing over centuries of Christian tradition.

I already said this minimal Jesus didn't perform miracles, so why should this be noteworthy on that point?

Well, you're getting into Da Vinci code territory. And a married Jesus raises other issues. If Jesus was married, where are his children? Why did they disappear from history until someone had to invent them?

Quote:

I haven't proven this to myself. Just that it is perhaps the most reasonable scenario and that it is reasonable enough to not expect such a mention. I am curious whether you would agree with my conclusions or not, and why. Care to comment?

I don't think your conclusion is "reasonable" - I think you are going to look for any possibility that would provide a superficial reason for Paul not to mention the historical Jesus, and accept it.

Quote:

I do think that it is not unreasonable for Paul to have been silent on the matter if he was focused on the end-times issue, even if Jesus was not married. I think silence would have been more reasonable had Jesus been married than non-married.

It wasn't just Paul. There was a whole strain of Christianity devoted to virginity and opposed to marriage, a very un-Jewish position.

Quote:

I still don't see it. If Jesus was married, why does Paul not use him as an example for how married people are to behave, in the following passages of 1 Cor 7? Are you now going to conclude that Jesus must have been a neglectful or abusive husband, otherwise Paul would have told people to respect their wives and husbands as Jesus did his wife?

I don't see a passage where this should be expected. I would not expect Paul to use Jesus as an example for someone who didn't get divorce, nor as an example of someone who married in order to control his sexual needs.

There are passages in Ephesians

Quote:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy

Not - Husbands, love your wives, just a Jesus was devoted to his own wife . . .

Ephesians is classified as Deutero-Pauline, but still early compared to the Gospels.

Quote:

This is my viewpoint, and I don't think I'm being inflexible. However, others--and you--can chime in if they do think it is.

I think you are interested in supporting your own position and are not going to be open to any new perspective.

Toto · 06-21-2010, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...
IF it turns out to be a waste of breath than we might have to conclude that my minimal Jesus is just as well supported as Doherty's Jesus in the sky hypothesis, and it would be high time to give it equal respect or disrespect. Maybe things have changed but in the past the Doherty Jesus seemed to be embraced by the skeptics while my minimal Jesus type was only embraced by a few skeptics. I'm trying to figure out whether that is because the skeptics are letting their own biases guide their conclusions OR whether there are more problems with my hypothesis than there are even with Doherty's hypothesis.

Doherty provides positive reasons for thinking that Paul refers to a spiritual savior who was never on earth. You seem to be content to show that Paul's writings are not incompatible with a historical Jesus. This does nothing to establish a positive case for a historical Jesus.

TedM · 06-21-2010, 08:39 AM

Toto and Spin,

Something you should know about me is that I just want to get at the truth, even if it is something other than what I prefer. If you don't believe that about me maybe we should stop communicating right now. It wastes a lot of time that I'd rather spend on the issues.

Toto · 06-21-2010, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Toto and Spin,

Something you should know about me is that I just want to get at the truth, even if it is something other than what I prefer. If you don't believe that about me maybe we should stop communicating right now. It wastes a lot of time that I'd rather spend on the issues.

We can only judge by what you display here.

In any case, there are others reading this. Please focus on the issues.

TedM · 06-21-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Let's assume Jesus was a preacher who did not perform miracles, and who preached of the coming kingdom of God but not of his own resurrection, and that he was arrested and crucified during Passover during Paul's lifetime.

In Paul's letters he talks about Christ in heaven with God, not what he did or said on earth. The Passion has to be read into the texts, there are no details provided.

Quote:

Let's further assume Jesus did not preach about salvation to the Gentiles.

Paul doesn't tell us what Jesus said.

So, are you saying that you are ok with the assumptions? If not, why aren't you providing passages where we should expect something other than what is there IF my assumptions are correct? And, why aren't you providing passages that you think contradict my assumptions?

I don't mean to be nasty here, but this is the premise. The goal is to TEST the assumptions--not to CRITIQUE them.

EDIT: I'm sorry. This is what 4 hours of sleep will do to me. You did put them to the test generically. I think you are saying that the assumptions of preaching at all on earth--and not just on the kingdom of God, being arrested on earth, and crucified during Passover on earth, are not supported by Paul. And I assume you think he should have mentioned them. Before I respond to these claims may I ask where and why?

TedM · 06-21-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And a married Jesus raises other issues. If Jesus was married, where are his children? Why did they disappear from history until someone had to invent them?

Why assume he had children? Why assume those children were believers? Where and why would you expect Paul to mention them?

regarding my conclusion about Paul not mentioning Jesus' marriage status

Quote:

I don't think your conclusion is "reasonable"

What was objectionable about it?

Quote:

It wasn't just Paul. There was a whole strain of Christianity devoted to virginity and opposed to marriage, a very un-Jewish position.

Ok, but how did that develop? If it started with the example of a non-married Jesus we perhaps should expect Paul to have mentioned it. If it started with Paul himself, and Jesus had been married we perhaps should not expect Paul to mention it.

Quote:

There are passages in Ephesians

Sorry, since Ephesians is not considered one of the 7 'authentic' epistles, I'll pass on that one, although I do think it is questionable as to whether Paul should be expected to know how good Jesus' relationship was with his wife.

I'll try to look at the kingdom of god passage and the preaching passage later today.

TedM · 06-21-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Hi TedM, good to see you back!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Let's assume Jesus was a preacher who did not perform miracles, and who preached of the coming kingdom of God but not of his own resurrection, and that he was arrested and crucified during Passover during Paul's lifetime. Let's further assume Jesus did not preach about salvation to the Gentiles.

Given this backdrop:
1. What references to this minimal historical Jesus should we expect Paul to have made?
2. What references in Paul's presumed writings are contrary to this kind of Jesus (make sure they refer to him prior to the resurrecton)?

Two items:

(1)

1. I think we would expect Paul to have some references to Jesus' teachings, or at least his roll as a teacher. Even if Jesus didn't preach salvation to the Gentiles, there must have been something that Jesus would have said that Paul could have used, somewhere.
2. Paul doesn't appear to frame Jesus as a preacher. The couple of references to teachings may have been given after Jesus was resurrected.

(2)

1. I think we would expect specific details about Jesus' life. Paul appears to suggest that Jesus led a good life, obedient to God "even to death", and this warrants God to appoint Jesus "Son of God" by the resurrection. But unless Jesus just lived in a cave all his life, what did he actually DO?
2. Nothing really in Paul that contradicts the above, other than a lack of details. I agree that Paul's focus is on the Gentiles and on Gentile salvation, but was there nothing that Jesus did as part of his "obedient life" that Paul couldn't have used as an example?

Certainly those are things that we would expect.

Still haven't forgotten you Don. Very good points to think about.. Will respond sometime..

bacht · 06-21-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

In Paul's letters he talks about Christ in heaven with God, not what he did or said on earth. The Passion has to be read into the texts, there are no details provided.

Paul doesn't tell us what Jesus said.

So, are you saying that you are ok with the assumptions? If not, why aren't you providing passages where we should expect something other than what is there IF my assumptions are correct? And, why aren't you providing passages that you think contradict my assumptions?

I don't mean to be nasty here, but this is the premise. The goal is to TEST the assumptions--not to CRITIQUE them.

EDIT: I'm sorry. This is what 4 hours of sleep will do to me. You did put them to the test generically. I think you are saying that the assumptions of preaching at all on earth--and not just on the kingdom of God, being arrested on earth, and crucified during Passover on earth, are not supported by Paul. And I assume you think he should have mentioned them. Before I respond to these claims may I ask where and why?

I'm not an academic so feel free to dismiss me as a lightweight. Others here like spin can actually read the Koine and have done some research.

My point is that everything about Christian origins seems to be based on shaky assumptions. That there was a real Paul or a real Jesus are assumptions, they can't be proven historically. That the first Christians lived and taught before the fall of the temple are assumptions, witnessed only by church tradition, particularly the gospels and Acts.

That Jesus lived ca 30 ce, or that he was a Galilean, or that he was killed by Pilate or some other Roman authority are all story points without external corroboration. We do have the testimony of Tacitus, Pliny et al that there were some kind of Christians by the early 2nd C. That's about all the confirmation we have.

We know that early apologists fought vigorously against heretics from the 2nd C onward. The texts we have in the New Testament are catholicized, and in some cases may have originated with gnostics or people like Marcion.

Coming back to Paul, we know how important his letters were/are to Catholic teaching. As you say he was the main apostle to the gentiles (assuming a Jewish origin for the whole thing, which isn't ironclad either). His description of Christ is supernatural, not mundane. There is almost nothing in the letters which could answer ordinary questions from converts: "Did this being walk the earth?" "Where and when?" "What did he look like?" etc. Paul doesn't quote Jesus or the other apostles who supposedly followed him, and doesn't cite examples from their lives.

Paul is describing a saviour, not a teacher. If we accept the apocalyptic theme then it didn't matter what Jesus taught because he was returning soon anyway before the final judgment. Paul and the others were just waiting for the end, not creating a new sect.

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

06-21-2010, 08:39 AM	#45
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Toto and Spin, Something you should know about me is that I just want to get at the truth, even if it is something other than what I prefer. If you don't believe that about me maybe we should stop communicating right now. It wastes a lot of time that I'd rather spend on the issues.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.