Toto

It might help if you reference the precise language in Paul. I can find internet Christians who claim that Paul does or does not reference a pre-existent Christ, but none of these passages sound much like Alice Walker (1 Corinthians 10, Philippians 2?)

I think of gJohn as referring to Jesus as preexistent more than Paul.

Ben C Smith

Actually, I am thinking mainly of the pseudo-Paulines. See Colossians 1.15-17, for example. All things were created in him; does that mean he was present at the creation? Obama was with us and in us through all the generations; does that mean that he was present in each generation?

But such language is present in Paul himself, too, as in 1 Corinthians 8.6 (all things exist through him).

Ben.

Toto

I still want to know what conclusions you draw from any perceived similarities, and what the implications are.

A new age spiritualist poet refers to Barack Obama as someone who may have been preexistent, who would appear someday. What does this imply about Paul's language? Do you think that Paul was an equally flakey spiritualist?

Presumably Paul's language spoke to his age. In contrast, Alice Walker's language is a source of eye-rolling and derision - reactions to her April 1 endorsement of Obama are here, here "merging the goddesses of vapidity with the goddesses of arrogance and mumbo-jumbo" and here.

Her post election words are mocked in 20 wildest reactions to Obama's victory - no particular comment is needed, except "what took him so long?"

Ben C Smith

Sorry. I give up. I apologize for not having made it clearer to you somehow.

Ben.

Toto

I'm just getting started.

I think that GDon wants to dangle this reference as some sort of implication that Paul's language about Jesus is compatible with a historical Jesus, without actually owning up to his real motives or examining all of the implications. I want him to lay his cards on the table.

Ben C Smith

Just wait till you get going!

I cannot speak to his motives. I can speak only to what I perceive to be his point, whose potential connection to the MJ debate is clear, but whose independent value is also clear.

Ben.

GakuseiDon

Toto, I swear to you, on everything I hold holy, and on anything you wish to name -- God, my family, anything -- that I did not start this thread with purposes of it being about mythicism. However, given my previous involvement in HJ/MJ debates, your cynicism is natural and completely understandable.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but since this looks like being a problem whenever I post, I would like to explain where I came from, and where I come from now. If anyone thinks I'm being disingenuous or dishonest, fair enough, but I hope you will keep an open mind.

My interest in how people thought "back then" came about when I read Origen's "Contra Celsus", and I was blown away by how similar many criticisms against Christianity made by Celsus are to modern ones (you may remember my joke that "Arguments against Christianity haven't advanced in 1800 years!" that I like to use). This led on to me becoming interested in Second Century writings as well. Consequently, many of my early debates against Doherty were around Second Century writings. Eventually, I went on to develop an interest in First Century writings, both Christian and pagan. (And I will stress again that my interest is as an amateur. I have no language skills or formal qualifications in this area at all).

My interest in mythicism has always been framed around "how did they think back then?", which is why I've really only looked at Doherty and 'copycat' style mythicism. There are other types that I've barely looked at -- Wells', MM's, the "Jesus Christ was Julius Caesar", "Jesus was Titus", etc. They just don't fall into my field of interest, for one reason or another.

Now, AFAIK, I've gone through all the evidence that Doherty and the 'copycatists' have given and, in my own personal opinion, there is nothing there that reflects how people thought back then. So I have lost interest in debating on those topics, at least for now.

That's not to say that I won't be involved in any debates on mythicism in the future, and I plan to write at least one article for my website on "Early Metaphysics 101" which will include a section dealing directly with ideas Doherty has brought up. But at the moment, mythicism is a dead issue for me. If anyone wants to claim that people back then thought that there was a spiritual realm where Christ was crucified, or that they believed Mithras and Krishna were crucified, I will probably roll my eyes but I don't plan to participate in a debate on the topic. (* Now, if someone said that they had evidence for that, I would definitely ask them for it and then look into it).

But as I said, given my past involvement on this board, I understand if you are suspicious about my motives. All I ask is that you consider what I've written above when reading my posts. And I will try to make it clearer also where I am coming from in future.

As for my insight, I can only repeat what I've already said earlier. It's made me wonder whether I (speaking personally) have misread Paul, and whether some of the things he has said that I regarded as spiritual may in fact be more metaphorical. Also, I wonder whether later generations may have misread Paul similarly. These are not new nor even radical ideas, of course. I saw Walker's article as a demonstration of how easy it would be to misread such rhetoric. I don't see it as being difficult for a later generation of neo-gnostics to reinterpret Walker and make her "the apostle of the gnostics" a la Marcion. Speaking hypothetically, it could easily lead to a number of groups:
1. Obama supporters who see Obama as a human hero: "The One" who will guide them.
2. The evil John McCain-types, who see Obama as a false hero: "That One" whose false promises will destroy us.
3. The gnostics who see Obama as a divine figure: "The Divine One", promised throughout the generations, finally to appear in ours.

I presented the article as food for thought, not an argument in itself.

GakuseiDon

The implication is that Paul's language about Jesus may be compatible with a human (i.e. not divine) Jesus. For purposes of this thread, I would like to assume that a historical Jesus is a given. Thus any analysis based on this assumption is moot in terms of a historical Jesus and the HJ/MJ debate, since we would only be concluding what we are assuming.