gstafleu

It would? Well, in part yes. Let is compare the Buddha and Jesus. Both went through a significant transformation in the presence of a tree. The Buddha reached "enlightenment" under the Bodhi tree, Jesus was "hung on a tree" (crucified), after which he resurrected and rose to heaven.

This, I would suggest, shows that both the correspondences and differences are important, for example: why the tree in both, what does the difference in transformation tell us? So in saying "all these stories are the same, so why compare them" misses important points, just as the opposite "you cannot possibly compare these stories" does.

Gerard Stafleu

Toto

One gets tired of repeating the same answers. Paul did not think that the world would still be around 2000 years later - such a fact would probably have caused him to lose his faith and go back to tentmaking. But one can still argue that it would have been expected of him to refer to some details of the historical Jesus at critical points in his letters.

Gregg

Doherty has already addressed this objection many times, in lengthy detail. You may want to read his supplementary article # 8, "Christ as 'Man': Does Paul Speak of Jesus as a Historical Person?" (www.jesuspuzzle.org)


Again, Doherty has addressed objections like this at considerable length, and has arguments that sharply call into question the conventional hand-waving explanation that Paul was addressing matters that did not require Gospel details. See his Main Articles, Part I: A Conspiracy of Silence. More discussions of the Argument from Silence can be found throughout the site.

Well, it can get tiresome constantly having to reinvent the wheel. Some people on IIDB get bored with having to regularly correct misconceptions about evolution. It would be helpful if more people who want to object to Doherty's thesis would read it. Then, if you don't agree with his explanations for Paul's few seemingly human references to Jesus, or his silence on Gospel details, we can discuss that. Understand that Doherty does not identify only "silences by omission," he also identifies instances in Paul and other NT epistles which seem to deny any role at all for an earthly Jesus.

Chris Weimer

This does nothing to help your case. If Paul thought the world would end soon, why bother with details of Jesus' life? Wouldn't it be the message that counted?

Argue away, I've yet to see anything convincing.

Gregg

Doherty addresses conventional explanations like this, as you would know if you took the time to thoroughly read his site.

Paul was trying to save people, both Jew and Gentile. Like zealous missionaries today (even those who believe in predestination), he uses every weapon in his arsenal to convince people his gospel is the correct one, to persuade people to accept his gospel and to stay saved. He was writing to congregations of newly baptized Christians, many of whom were clearly shaky in their faith, and being courted by preachers of "different Christs" and "false doctrines," as well as critics who regarded the crucifixion as "folly." He deals with questions about morality, about whether Christians should follow Jewish dietary laws, about whether the gospel is for Jews only or for Gentiles as well--all matters about which, according to the gospels, Jesus made pronouncements.

Don't you think references to Jesus' life and teachings would have helped Paul in his efforts? Aren't Jesus' life and teachings the message itself?

Don't you think anyone out there would have asked, "Why should I believe that this particular crucified Jewish man was the incarnate Christ? Lots of Jewish rebels have been crucified, what makes this one special?" Sure, Paul could have found lots of gullible people willing to take him at his word, just as missionaries persuaded natives halfway around the world to accept Jesus, or Joseph Smith convinced people he'd received a revelation. But at the same time, Paul was clearly dealing with skeptics and religious rivals who were causing his recent converts to waver in faith; yet he never appeals to any details of Jesus' life and ministry to demonstrate how they fulfilled Scripture.

We get no hint that any of the critics or rival apostles who gave Paul headaches attacked his gospel as being about the worship of a crucified criminal, or questioned why the crucified man Jesus should be accepted as the incarnate Christ.

Even if you're a "bare bones" historicist, one who holds that Jesus didn't say or do most of the things the gospels say he did (perhaps holding that he was a radical preacher or a rebel leader who was executed by the Romans), this is still a very strange state of affairs. The less extraordinary Jesus becomes, the more difficult it becomes to understand why this vast elaborate mythological framework would have been applied to him almost immediately after his death. We have no examples of Jews applying this sort of mythology to any other executed Jewish preacher or leader, while we have numerous examples of non-historical, descending redeemers and dying/resurrecting savior gods.

gnosis92

I think that a counter-argument is that Paul's audience already knew Gospel details and Paul was responding to points they raised, which did not require details of Jesus bio.

DBT

Plus apart from the professional elite, the bulk of the Persians were not as well equipped as the Spartans, having little or no armour, wicker shields, etc. And poorly trained.

Chris Weimer

I think you're reading Paul through the lens of the gospel, as if the gospels themselves contained the original life of Jesus.

Paul was also dealing with people who personally knew Jesus. I don't think he'd try to touch what Jesus actually said with a ten foot pole, a) never having met the guy, b) knowing people who did. For Paul, they just got it wrong.

What?

It is?

It does?

We have plenty of humans who were no less mythological than Jesus after their death or even before it. Antinous is one, St. Cuthbert is another. And as for the Jewish factor, there were still supporters of a very Jewish Jesus Christ well into, I believe, the fourth century, such as the Ebionites. The grand myths took place in the Hellenized world for a reason.

gnosis92

i think i'll open an new thread

spamandham

I'm curious when you think Homer wrote, and when you think the Story of the Spartans in the OP happened, and when you think the Biblical entries that sound familiar were written.