Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tovarij · 03-16-2006, 01:45 PM

How do those who think Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection or the gospel Jesus reconcile that idea with:

Galatians 4: 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law

Romans 1 :3 the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh,

Galatians 1 : 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 2 8 and which none of the rulers of this age knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

I Thessalonians 2 14 For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews,
15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone,

1 Corinthians 15 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5 that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

(I picked the best sources from http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm)

Ben C Smith · 03-16-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tovarij

How do those who think Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection or the gospel Jesus reconcile that idea with....

Here are some of the answers you are likely to get from mythicists:

Quote:

Galatians 4: 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law

1. Marcion omits the italicized phrase, and Marcion represents the Pauline original.
2. This birth was in a mythical realm not our own, not on planet earth.
3. This birth is not placed in a particular historical time; it could have happened at any point in history.

Quote:

Romans 1 :3 the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh,

1. Marcion probably omits the italicized phrase, and Marcion represents the Pauline original.
2. This descent was in a mythical realm not our own, not on planet earth.
3. This birth is not placed in a particular historical time; it could have happened at any point in history after David.

Quote:

Galatians 1 : 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

1. Marcion omits the italicized phrase, and Marcion represents the Pauline original.
2. Brother of the Lord does not mean brother of Jesus, the man who walked on earth; it refers to a Jewish-Christian group in early Christianity called the brothers of the Lord.

Quote:

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

1. This passage is an interpolation into Paul, who would never refer to Jesus as an historical human being, since he does not do so elsewhere.
2. Paul saw that night in a vision from the Lord, not as a received fact of history; Mark later placed that night in history illegitimately.
3. That night is not placed in a particular historical time; it could have happened at any point in history.

Quote:

1 Corinthians 2 8 and which none of the rulers of this age knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1. The rulers of this age are spirits, not people, and they crucified the Lord of glory in an aerial realm, not on this planet.
2. This crucifixion is not placed in a particular historical time; it could have happened at any point in history.

Quote:

I Thessalonians 2 14 For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews,
15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone,

1. This passage is an interpolation into Paul, who would never have referred to the Jews in this manner, and who would never refer to Jesus as an historical human being, since he does not do so elsewhere.
2. ????

Quote:

1 Corinthians 15 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5 that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

1. This passage is an interpolation into Paul, who would never refer to actual appearances to these named figures, since he does not do so elsewhere.
2. This passage does not say that Christ died, was buried, and was raised on earth; these things happened in another realm.
3. This passage does not say that the appearances happened in close succession to the resurrection; the resurrection could have happened any time in history, and the appearances much later, to contemporaries of Paul.

Quote:

(I picked the best sources from http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm)

Bede is a bog-standard apologist whose enduring interest is to prove that which he already believes without evidence.

Ben.

hatsoff · 03-16-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Bede is a bog-standard apologist whose enduring interest is to prove that which he already believes without evidence.

That doesn't mean we should dismiss everything, just that we should balance it with other evidence.

By the way, thanks for the Marcion & interpolation quotes.

Ben C Smith · 03-16-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

That doesn't mean we should dismiss everything, just that we should balance it with other evidence.

(That was tongue in cheek, BTW. I do not know enough about Bede to make a call one way or the other.)

Ben.

tovarij · 03-16-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Here are some of the answers you are likely to get from mythicists:

1. Marcion omits the italicized phrase, and Marcion represents the Pauline original.
2. This birth was in a mythical realm not our own, not on planet earth.
3. This birth is not placed in a particular historical time; it could have happened at any point in history.

1. Marcion probably omits the italicized phrase, and Marcion represents the Pauline original.
2. This descent was in a mythical realm not our own, not on planet earth.
3. This birth is not placed in a particular historical time; it could have happened at any point in history after David.

1. Marcion omits the italicized phrase, and Marcion represents the Pauline original.
2. Brother of the Lord does not mean brother of Jesus, the man who walked on earth; it refers to a Jewish-Christian group in early Christianity called the brothers of the Lord.

1. This passage is an interpolation into Paul, who would never refer to Jesus as an historical human being, since he does not do so elsewhere.
2. Paul saw that night in a vision from the Lord, not as a received fact of history; Mark later placed that night in history illegitimately.
3. That night is not placed in a particular historical time; it could have happened at any point in history.

1. The rulers of this age are spirits, not people, and they crucified the Lord of glory in an aerial realm, not on this planet.
2. This crucifixion is not placed in a particular historical time; it could have happened at any point in history.

1. This passage is an interpolation into Paul, who would never have referred to the Jews in this manner, and who would never refer to Jesus as an historical human being, since he does not do so elsewhere.
2. ????

1. This passage is an interpolation into Paul, who would never refer to actual appearances to these named figures, since he does not do so elsewhere.
2. This passage does not say that Christ died, was buried, and was raised on earth; these things happened in another realm.
3. This passage does not say that the appearances happened in close succession to the resurrection; the resurrection could have happened any time in history, and the appearances much later, to contemporaries of Paul.

Bede is a bog-standard apologist whose enduring interest is to prove that which he already believes without evidence.

Ben.

But in one case you said Marcion probably omits the phrase. Are you sure about the other omissions, or are you relaying what the mythicists say? Thanks!

Toto · 03-16-2006, 03:12 PM

Bede is a Christian (Catholic) apologist who used to post here. He may be a cut above "bog standard" (an ironic reference to Vorkosigan's characterization of certain Christian apologists, for those who don't follow these boards) but he is definitely in the business of justifying what he originally believed based on faith. (You can read his conversion story on his website.)

Bede specializes in medieval Christian history. What he repeats about Paul is gleaned from others. All of his arguments have been presented at one time or another on these boards, and have not survived the acid test.

In particular, Paul's letters probably contain many interpolations. We do not have the original letters or any reliable copy of an original letter, and we know that various factions of the 2nd c. church accused each other of adding and subtracting from Paul's letters, and that only the approved version has survived. For more on interpolations, please read this thread.

Different mythicists take a different position on Paul's letters. Earl Doherty accepts the standard dating and the majority view on authenticity, and interprets various phrases as referring to events happening in a higher realm. You can read most of his arguments at www.jesuspuzzle.com or buy his book The Jesus Puzzle.

Other mythicists claim that Paul's letters contain interpolations, or that the entire corpus of Pauline letters was written in the second century and does not represent early Christianity. Read more about that here.

The reference to the Brother of the Lord is probably a reference to James' title as head of a sect, not a reference to a biological brother.

Toto · 03-16-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tovarij

But in one case you said Marcion probably omits the phrase. Are you sure about the other omissions, or are you relaying what the mythicists say? Thanks!

Marcion's work has not survived. We can only infer what he wrote based on the Christian fathers who wrote in opposition to him. All of this is a matter of probability, and no one can be sure about anything.

Spanky · 03-16-2006, 04:26 PM

I really don't understand all this Doherty stuff. Jesus being a myth, that I understand. When I used to read Paul, I never read into it as if he never spoke of a historical Jesus. Quotes like the ones the OP brought up solidified this. So, that said. . .
Maybe this should be in the Basic Questions thread

Who is this Marcion guy and why would there be a debate about if he tampered with Paul's writings?
He came much after Paul, no?

Also, where in the hell in all the epistles do you see a sub-lunar realm? I don't read Greek, nor do I care to. The closest thing to me that mentions this would be the book of Hebrews. What am I missing?

Toto · 03-16-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky

...
Who is this Marcion guy and why would there be a debate about if he tampered with Paul's writings?
He came much after Paul, no?

Briefly, Marcion was an arch-heretic who thought that the Jewish God of the Bible was not the true god but an evil demi-urge, that there was a greater god only revealed by Jesus Christ, and some other doctrines that sound strange today. He thought that the only reliable apostle was Paul, and that Peter and the others did not understand Jesus' message. More here.

Marcion was the first to produce a Canonical New Testament, which consisted of a pared-down version of the book of Luke and his version of Paul's letters. We don't actually have any reliable record of Paul's letters that pre-dates Marcion, and it is possible that we would not have any record without Marcion.

Quote:

Also, where in the hell in all the epistles do you see a sub-lunar realm? I don't read Greek, nor do I care to. The closest thing to me that mentions this would be the book of Hebrews. What am I missing?

The sub-lunar realm was part of the standard cosmology of the time. There are hints of this in Paul's letters - he refers to someone raised up to the third heaven, to the archons who control this world, etc.

Spanky · 03-16-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Marcion was the first to produce a Canonical New Testament, which consisted of a pared-down version of the book of Luke and his version of Paul's letters. We don't actually have any reliable record of Paul's letters that pre-dates Marcion, and it is possible that we would not have any record without Marcion.

When you say "his" version of Paul's epistles you are saying that there are actual known copies of Paul's epistles before Marcion got his hands on them, right?

03-16-2006, 01:45 PM	#1
tovarij Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: North America Posts: 22	Mythical Jesus and arguments from silence How do those who think Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection or the gospel Jesus reconcile that idea with: Galatians 4: 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law Romans 1 :3 the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh, Galatians 1 : 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11 23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 2 8 and which none of the rulers of this age knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. I Thessalonians 2 14 For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone, 1 Corinthians 15 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; 4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; 5 that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me. (I picked the best sources from http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm)

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

03-16-2006, 03:12 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Bede is a Christian (Catholic) apologist who used to post here. He may be a cut above "bog standard" (an ironic reference to Vorkosigan's characterization of certain Christian apologists, for those who don't follow these boards) but he is definitely in the business of justifying what he originally believed based on faith. (You can read his conversion story on his website.) Bede specializes in medieval Christian history. What he repeats about Paul is gleaned from others. All of his arguments have been presented at one time or another on these boards, and have not survived the acid test. In particular, Paul's letters probably contain many interpolations. We do not have the original letters or any reliable copy of an original letter, and we know that various factions of the 2nd c. church accused each other of adding and subtracting from Paul's letters, and that only the approved version has survived. For more on interpolations, please read this thread. Different mythicists take a different position on Paul's letters. Earl Doherty accepts the standard dating and the majority view on authenticity, and interprets various phrases as referring to events happening in a higher realm. You can read most of his arguments at www.jesuspuzzle.com or buy his book The Jesus Puzzle. Other mythicists claim that Paul's letters contain interpolations, or that the entire corpus of Pauline letters was written in the second century and does not represent early Christianity. Read more about that here. The reference to the Brother of the Lord is probably a reference to James' title as head of a sect, not a reference to a biological brother.

03-16-2006, 04:26 PM	#8
Spanky Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: US Posts: 1,216	I really don't understand all this Doherty stuff. Jesus being a myth, that I understand. When I used to read Paul, I never read into it as if he never spoke of a historical Jesus. Quotes like the ones the OP brought up solidified this. So, that said. . . Maybe this should be in the Basic Questions thread Who is this Marcion guy and why would there be a debate about if he tampered with Paul's writings? He came much after Paul, no? Also, where in the hell in all the epistles do you see a sub-lunar realm? I don't read Greek, nor do I care to. The closest thing to me that mentions this would be the book of Hebrews. What am I missing?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.