Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zeichman · 12-05-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

As he says so himself Paul was a late apostle. So even if the gospels are fictional it stands to reason that the authors avoided mentioning him. It may also be that Mark never heard of Paul.

I defy you to find a modern, credible scholar who believes Mark is unfamiliar with Paul. As "the apostle to the uncircumcized" it seems inconcievable that Mark would be unfamiliar with him. Portraying Paul's adversaries as fools (the pillars, Pharisees, etc.), one might reasonably expect Paul to make an appearance if his experience with Jesus was in no way different than theirs, if such was the case in history. And why not extend the gospel to include Paul. Certainly the messianic secret is no longer prohibiting such for literary purposes.

Quote:

I do not expect this at all.
I will tell you what many Christians tell me (about Paul's silence) ... you are arguing from silence.

You've yet to convince me why I shouldn't expect this. Arguing from silence is precisely what Doherty does.

Quote:

I am not sure I understand what you mean but it also sounds like an argument from silence. Can you define "Christ Cult"? what is included and what is not? Perhaps then I can answer your statement more fully.

A Christ Cult would exhibit the following:
a) Jesus as annointed by God
b) Belief in the risen Jesus
c) Some form of martyrology/soterology as related to Jesus' life/death/rising

All of these are absent from the four sources I cited (miracle source, Q, Thomas, Marcan Pronouncement source).

Quote:

You got to be kidding. Paul did not know the HJ Jesus... that much we agree but if he believed this man to be the son of God who came to earth to save humanity then he was a source of revelation for Paul's faith.

Demonstrate this, please.

Quote:

Even if Paul was a moron he would have understood this. As I am often told by Christians Paul must have been taught certaing things about Jesus from other Christians. 1 Cor 15 says that he is passing on what he has received. Where does this come from if not the HJ?

The risen Christ, the Hebrew BIble and oral tradition were no doubt Paul's primary sources for Christ's revelation.

Quote:

Of course I believe it comes from scriptures but you believe it comes from the HJ. So how can Paul fail to mention that Jesus himself taught this?

I never made such a claim.

Quote:

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with (W)Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

The Gospels have Jesus revealing scriptures to his disciples. What is peculiar about Luke 24:27 is that it takes place after Jesus' death.

One is told that this information was then passed down until it reached Paul's ears and others as well. However Paul does not acknowledge this.

Are you proposing that the risen Jesus revealed the list of to whom he appeared and it became a creed? Absurd.

Quote:

It was not a coincidence. All I have to do is to show that the central Jesus story is derived from scriptures. Explain why it occurred during Pilate's time and in what sense Jesus was murdered by the Romans.

No, that's not what you have to do. Individual sayings which have attestations from sources which are almost assuredly independent must be demonstrated to be ahistorical. I do not accept the outline for Jesus' life as portrayed in the gospels as historically accurate. Anyone believing that such a specific outline of someone's life could be retained over 40-50 years is naive, which you and I can both agree on.

Quote:

Paul tells us that Jesus will return to rule see 1 Corinthians 15 : 25 which comes from Psalms. Paul also claims that it was foretold that salvation would be brought to the Gentiles and he points to a verse in scriptures. There are other things as well which Paul derived from scriptures.

And I certainly won't deny that. However, the widespreadness of the Cynic-like admonitions, the critique of riches, etc. found throughout the gospels and their sources cannot be demonstrated to be Pauline creations and/or derived wholly from the Hebrew Bible.

Quote:

2 Cor 11:5
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

Clear enough?

No. Paul is talking himself up because his credibility is not accepted by the Corinthians. This is not at all evidence he was as highly regarded as these other individuals, if anything it is evidence against it.

Quote:

Sure! I have read Paul's epistles so many times it is starting to come out of my ears.
Paul was a late apostle. It should come as no surprize that the Church had some leaders before Paul. What is significant is that Paul does not bow to their authority. He does not think ... these people have lived with and were taught by Jesus himself so perhaps I should listen to what they have to say.

Well, he certainly sought them out when he first converted, an indication of their generally high regard. (Galatians 1-2) Paul, in fact, seeks to have his gospel approved by them. (2:2)

Quote:

No, not in the least.
Paul claims direct revelation and he says about other apostles
"let then acknowledge that what I says come from God"
or something like that. Paul does not think himself inferior to others simply because he has not been taught by Jesus himself.

Quote:

That is why he does not acknowledge Jesus as a source of revelation.
If Jesus was a source of revelation then Peter, James and John would know things that Paul did not know. After his conversion the natural thing to have done is to go to the source. Paul does not do this. Paul is self-reliant.

Going in the diapspora one could hardly expect the Jerusalem Pillars to follow him around.

Quote:

It is all consitent.
Paul does not consult with existing apostles.

Wrong. Galatians 1-2.

Quote:

Paul does not claim the HJ as a source of revelation

Wrong. The four sayings of the lord indicate otherwise.

Quote:

Paul claims direct revelation.
Paul refers to the Lord's Supper but does not even hint that Jesus was with his disciples at the time he broke the bread. The Gospels add " ... and gave it to his disciples". Paul seems to be unaware that Jesus gave the bread to his disciples after breaking it. Do compare Paul's version with the Gospels.

The idea that the historical Jesus would advocate his followers drink his blood is absurd. The Lord's Supper certainly does not go back to the historical Jesus, few critical scholars accept it, if any. Mack proposes it was an etiology for the communal meals which the Christ Cults engaged in.

Quote:

So you acknowledge that most if not all of the Gospel story is fiction?

Big Bang Christianity with an HJ holds what you said to be true.

Quote:

What do you consider to be fairly sure knowledge of the HJ?

I'm taking a class on Jesus and the Gospels next semester. I'll get back with you then. Personally, I believe the Cynic-style sayings to be most likely to go back to Jesus, though I make no firm commitment.

Quote:

A controversy best explained by the fact each apostle read scriptures differently. Paul got his from Psalm 2:7 just as Hebrew 1 3:5 did.

Psalms 2:7
"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

From this Paul concluded that Jesus became son of God after he returned to Heaven. The earliest version we have of GLuke has these words at Jesus' baptism and spoken by the father above.

Widespread quotation of certain parts of the Hebrew Bible (Psalm 110) being used to intepret various parts of Jesus' life in a theological way is not an argument for Mythicism. At best, it is an argument for ahistoricity of individual events.

NOGO · 12-05-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Demonstrate this, please.

Let me get this straight.
You want me to demonstrate that Jesus was a source of revelation about the Christian faith to a believer?

Quote:

The risen Christ, the Hebrew BIble and oral tradition were no doubt Paul's primary sources for Christ's revelation.

I distibguish between oral source and oral source going back to Jesus.
Oral source may just go back to the first apostles' interpretation of scriptures or direct inspiration.
Surely if Jesus taught and did anything the oral tradition would not only pass on this information but also insist that this came from Jesus himself.

So if Paul heard something which came from Jesus himself then he would have called Jesus a source of revelation.

If Paul heard "Love one another" from Peter who added "this was taught by Jesus while he was with us". Surely Paul would not pass this one and omit the source?

Is it possible that Paul was never told something with the tag "this came from Jesus himself while he was on earth"?

Quote:

Are you proposing that the risen Jesus revealed the list of to whom he appeared and it became a creed? Absurd.

Where the hell did you get that?

Quote:

No, that's not what you have to do. Individual sayings which have attestations from sources which are almost assuredly independent must be demonstrated to be ahistorical. I do not accept the outline for Jesus' life as portrayed in the gospels as historically accurate. Anyone believing that such a specific outline of someone's life could be retained over 40-50 years is naive, which you and I can both agree on.
And I certainly won't deny that. However, the widespreadness of the Cynic-like admonitions, the critique of riches, etc. found throughout the gospels and their sources cannot be demonstrated to be Pauline creations and/or derived wholly from the Hebrew Bible.

And how do these demonstrate an HJ?

Quote:

No. Paul is talking himself up because his credibility is not accepted by the Corinthians. This is not at all evidence he was as highly regarded as these other individuals, if anything it is evidence against it.

I am not saying that Paul was as highly regarded as any other apostle.
I am saying that he sees himself that way or he can argue that he is equal to any. In other words there is no impediment like "you have not lived with him and never heard him preach and do miracles"

Quote:

Well, he certainly sought them out when he first converted, an indication of their generally high regard. (Galatians 1-2) Paul, in fact, seeks to have his gospel approved by them. (2:2)

Not at all. Paul says exactly the opposite.
He says that when he first converted he did not seek flesh and blood.
He waited three years before going to Jerusalem.
The gospel approved was the bringing of the faith to the gentiles.
He did not seek to learn about the man Jesus.
Which is totally bizarre.
Even today if you had a chance to meet Peter or any of the twelve you would ask about Jesus would you not?
You would then be eager to pass on this information to other believers.
Not Paul!

Quote:

Going in the diapspora one could hardly expect the Jerusalem Pillars to follow him around.

You are talking nonsense.
What I am saying is that Paul should have gone to the source right after his conversion to get all the details about Jesus and then start preaching.
Instead he goes to Jerusalem three years later to talk about preaching to the gentiles not about Jesus.

Quote:

Wrong. Galatians 1-2.

Paul had been preaching for a long time before this happened.

Quote:

Wrong. The four sayings of the lord indicate otherwise.

Which four sayings?
Let's save time tell us also how you know that these sayings come from the HJ?

Quote:

The idea that the historical Jesus would advocate his followers drink his blood is absurd. The Lord's Supper certainly does not go back to the historical Jesus, few critical scholars accept it, if any. Mack proposes it was an etiology for the communal meals which the Christ Cults engaged in.

Whether the Lord's supper goes back to the HJ is immaterial to the point I am making. Simply put we have two versions of this moment. Paul's version does not mention that Jesus was with his disciples. Mark's version does.
How do you explain this?
My claim is that this goes hand in hand with Paul not claiming Jesus as a source of revelation.
Hand in hand with Paul not passing on any detail of Jesus' life to his followers even after meeting Peter and James.

Quote:

Big Bang Christianity with an HJ holds what you said to be true.
I'm taking a class on Jesus and the Gospels next semester. I'll get back with you then. Personally, I believe the Cynic-style sayings to be most likely to go back to Jesus, though I make no firm commitment.

Is it not possible that they go back to Peter or any one of the initial apostles.
Or all of them as a group?

Quote:

Widespread quotation of certain parts of the Hebrew Bible (Psalm 110) being used to intepret various parts of Jesus' life in a theological way is not an argument for Mythicism. At best, it is an argument for ahistoricity of individual events.

You claimed lack of controversies as a proof of the HJ.
I give you controversies.
Now you are saying that this does not prove a MJ.
If Jesus started Christianity and his disciples got the message first hand
then you are right to expect few controversies.
There are many controversies therefore the message did not come from a single source.
It came from scripture and direct revelation as Paul claims.
Each adding his own view and interpretation of scriptures.
That explains the controversies.
That explains why it took more that three centuries and force to have a unified Christianity. That explains why Protestantism has been split from the start and continues to be so.

Any religion which accepts direct revelation or interpretation of scriptures will eventually split.
Taking the apostolic tradition route does not pose this problem.
Paul was on a fast track on the former.
The Gospels came later to reverse the trend.

TedM · 12-05-2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

If Paul heard "Love one another" from Peter who added "this was taught by Jesus while he was with us". Surely Paul would not pass this one and omit the source?

Doherty questioned this too, using 1 Thessalonians 4:9 as an example. Here was my response to that "silence" (#4)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

2. Relevancy within context:

As for the passage in question I agree that it would have been a good place to mention such a teaching by Jesus, but I would disagree that it somehow "excludes" an assumption of such a teaching. The idea that since Paul mentioned the source of the teaching as God himself doesn't exclude an assumption that Jesus taught it, especially when we see in GMark that Jesus himself also mentions the source as being God's commandment, and not himself.

Just 8 verses prior to the one in question, Paul appears to give credit to Jesus:

4:1-2 "1Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more. 2For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus."

This could be interpreted as Paul passing along Jesus' commands from either an earthly ministry or through revelation. The source for verse 9 which follows then could have been teachings of an earthly Jesus.

If we assume the proper interpretation is that of a revelation, then I would point out another silence in the passage, which might then be unexpected: Paul describes Jesus as having not lived to please himself (Rom 15:3), being a servant to the Jews (Rom 15:8), sinless (2 Cor 5:21), and meek and gentle (2 Cor 10:1), and in Thessalonians Paul praises his readers for being imitators of the Lord in 1:6. Paul appeals to Jesus' conduct as an example others should imitate, yet in this passage Paul doesn't tell them to love one another in accordance with Jesus' example. A failure to explicitly appeal to the example of Jesus seems just as much a silence as a failure to explicitly attribute the command to Jesus.

3. Related information in other early writings:

Paul writes in Rom 15:2-3 "2Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. 3For even Christ did not please Himself.." Paul may be appealing to Christss own example of brotherly love, and not just his sacrifice of love. That Paul is writing with the example and teachings of Jesus in mind might be evidenced further by the similarities found in the preceding 3 chapters of ethical teachings to those of Jesus in Q1 and Q. And, in 13:13 we have Paul again appearing to appeal to Jesus as an example for ethical conduct: "13Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. 14But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. "

Lastly, in the answer to #1 I mentioned possible references to Jesus' teachings by the authors of 1 John, the Didache, and 1 Clement. Examples from each of these focus on the teaching of brotherly love:

1 John focuses strongly on brotherly love and it may be saying that the commandment to love one another came from Jesus (see 1:5, 2:3, 3:11, 3:16, and 3:23). However it is not clear whether he means Jesus or God.

The Didache is full of teachings, including several that match the gospel closely, without giving attribution to Jesus, such as 1:3 "And the doctrine of the maxims is as follows: Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies. Fast on behalf of those that persecute you; for what thank is there if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? But do ye love them that hate you, and ye will not have an enemy."(see Mt 5:43-47 to compare), and "3:7 but be thou meek, for the meek shall inherit the earth."(see Mt 5:5 to compare) The book starts out in 1:2 with "Now the path of life is this--first, thou shalt love the God who made thee, they neighbor as thyself, and all things that thou wouldest not should be done unto thee, do not thou unto another." These clearly echo the Gospel Jesus' teachings about brotherly love and the Golden rule. Though no attribution is given for this specific doctrine, the author(s) of the Didache specifically mention the commandment in the gospel in 15:3 and 15:4 and in 8:2 quotes the Lord"s prayer, telling readers "as the Lord hath commanded in his gospel so pray ye" These indicate that the author was familiar with and was relying on the teachings in the gospel. It is therefore likely that the doctrine of brotherly love which he stresses as being the doctrine of the maxims was also known to have been part of Jesus' message in his gospel.

One of the two teachings of Jesus we find in 1 Clement directly relates to brotherly love:

"13:1-3 most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching forbearance and long-suffering: for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you. With this commandment and these precepts let us confirm ourselves, that we may walk in obedience to His hallowed words, with lowliness of mind."

Did you get a chance to read my post about how Paul's gospel differed from Jesus' gospel?

ted

NOGO · 12-06-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If we assume the proper interpretation is that of a revelation, then I would point out another silence in the passage, which might then be unexpected: Paul describes Jesus as having not lived to please himself (Rom 15:3), being a servant to the Jews (Rom 15:8), sinless (2 Cor 5:21), and meek and gentle (2 Cor 10:1), and in Thessalonians Paul praises his readers for being imitators of the Lord in 1:6.
ted

We went through this before did we not?

My answer has not changed. Here it is.

Romans 15:3
For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO REPROACHED YOU FELL ON ME."

Paul makes a claim of something Jesus did but … his reference is scriptures (Ps69:9). Instead of telling us about the historical situation where Jesus “pleased not himself�? and thus do what preachers do all the time, Paul quotes from scriptures. In other words Paul knows from scriptures and through inspiration that Jesus pleased not himself.

What Paul did in Galatians 3:8 (claimed a prophecy) he does not do here. Rather Paul gives his conclusion and then quotes the supporting scriptures.

This is a key point. If Jesus was a man who walked the earth in recent times and Paul claimed that Jesus was foretold in scriptures then one would expect what the Gospels do and that is to relate scriptures to passages in Jesus’ life. Paul does not do this. Paul reads his facts directly from scriptures.

So Paul is not saying
a) Jesus pleased not himself in this or that situation and it was foretold in scriptures – here is the reference.
Paul is saying
b) We know from scriptures that Christ did not please himself – here is the reference.

What Paul fails to do here he also fails to do elsewhere. The HJ is just absent from Paul's letters.

TedM, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. BUT there is no point challenging me on this again. I will give the same answer which you have not addressed.

TedM · 12-06-2005, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

We went through this before did we not?

My answer has not changed. Here it is.

Romans 15:3
For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO REPROACHED YOU FELL ON ME."

Paul makes a claim of something Jesus did but … his reference is scriptures (Ps69:9). Instead of telling us about the historical situation where Jesus “pleased not himself�? and thus do what preachers do all the time, Paul quotes from scriptures. In other words Paul knows from scriptures and through inspiration that Jesus pleased not himself.

What Paul did in Galatians 3:8 (claimed a prophecy) he does not do here. Rather Paul gives his conclusion and then quotes the supporting scriptures.

This is a key point. If Jesus was a man who walked the earth in recent times and Paul claimed that Jesus was foretold in scriptures then one would expect what the Gospels do and that is to relate scriptures to passages in Jesus’ life. Paul does not do this. Paul reads his facts directly from scriptures.

So Paul is not saying
a) Jesus pleased not himself in this or that situation and it was foretold in scriptures – here is the reference.
Paul is saying
b) We know from scriptures that Christ did not please himself – here is the reference.

What Paul fails to do here he also fails to do elsewhere. The HJ is just absent from Paul's letters.

TedM, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. BUT there is no point challenging me on this again. I will give the same answer which you have not addressed.

You appear to have missed the point of that paragraph completely. It was in the concluding sentences:

Quote:

Paul appeals to Jesus' conduct as an example others should imitate, yet in this passage Paul doesn't tell them to love one another in accordance with Jesus' example. A failure to explicitly appeal to the example of Jesus seems just as much a silence as a failure to explicitly attribute the command to Jesus.

What I was trying to do was point out that there is a silence in the verses surrounding 1 Thess 4:9 (imitate Jesus' example of loving others), even if Paul's Jesus were a heavenly-only Jesus. Yet the silence is still there even though we might not expect that since the heavenly-only Jesus was certainly a good example. IF he doesn't mention Jesus as a good example, why expect him to mention that Jesus taught the concept of loving one's neighbor? Both silences have a simple explanation--the readers already knew the silence. Why expect the absence of one silence over the other? As Rick Sumner says, it is a subjective expectation in any given passage. I agree that it would have fit in nicely to attribute it to Jesus (which I point out he may have actually done 8 verses prior), but there can be any number of good reasons why Paul was silent if he was.

And you said nothing about Paul's comment that he was giving them God's commands as authorized by Jesus (8 verses prior), or my references in 1 John, the Didache, and 1 Clement which seem to be clearly referring to the historical Jesus found in the Gospels, in 2 cases actually matching words of Jesus found in them! How, may I ask, do you interpret those references?

ted

NOGO · 12-07-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

What I was trying to do was point out that there is a silence in the verses surrounding 1 Thess 4:9 (imitate Jesus' example of loving others), even if Paul's Jesus were a heavenly-only Jesus. Yet the silence is still there even though we might not expect that since the heavenly-only Jesus was certainly a good example.

1 Thess 4:9 says that you yourself are taught by God to love one another.

I was refering to this
Romans 13:8-9
Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for (J)he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

All capitals are straight from the Hebrew scriptures.
Paul does not mention that Jesus also said this. For Paul if it is in scriptures then he believes that "you are taught by God".
Which is fine except --- where is Jesus in all of this?
The HJ is absent, absent and always absent from Paul's thinking.

Quote:

IF he doesn't mention Jesus as a good example, why expect him to mention that Jesus taught the concept of loving one's neighbor? Both silences have a simple explanation--the readers already knew the silence. Why expect the absence of one silence over the other?

It is not just a silence.
The case above is like many others.
They all converge to give us insight into Paul's thinking.
He does not acknowledge the HJ as a source of revelation.
Fails to attribute to him sayings which the Gospels do.
Fails to mention any passages of his life like in Romans 15:3.
Fails to prove that this man was indeed the messiah.

By the way, you have not answered my point on Romans 15:3

Quote:

And you said nothing about Paul's comment that he was giving them God's commands as authorized by Jesus (8 verses prior), or my references in 1 John, the Didache, and 1 Clement which seem to be clearly referring to the historical Jesus found in the Gospels, in 2 cases actually matching words of Jesus found in them! How, may I ask, do you interpret those references?

14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

All that Paul is saying here is to PUT ON JC
or if you like be spiritual.
No reference to Jesus' behavious at all.

1 John
John is always refering to the risen Jesus or God as you mention.

Didache
What is your point?
These teachings did not come from Jesus. Like Romans 13:9 they come from scriptures or come from inspired people like Paul and John.
So?

Clement is another matter.

TedM · 12-07-2005, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

1 Thess 4:9 says that you yourself are taught by God to love one another.

I was refering to this
Romans 13:8-9
Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for (J)he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

All capitals are straight from the Hebrew scriptures.
Paul does not mention that Jesus also said this. For Paul if it is in scriptures then he believes that "you are taught by God".
Which is fine except --- where is Jesus in all of this?
The HJ is absent, absent and always absent from Paul's thinking.

It is not just a silence.
The case above is like many others.
They all converge to give us insight into Paul's thinking.
He does not acknowledge the HJ as a source of revelation.
Fails to attribute to him sayings which the Gospels do.

Paul says in 1 thess 4:2 says that Jesus authorized commands which Paul had taught the Thessalonians. The commands included OT commands from God, which by the way Jesus himself said they were commands from God, not himself, so saying "Jesus authorized commands" is even more accurate than "Jesus commanded".

Quote:

Fails to mention any passages of his life like in Romans 15:3.

I agree, though he certainly could have mentioned happenings up there in the firmament (if that was Paul's true Jesus) if he wanted to since you seem to accept the idea that Paul made up happenings such as Jesus eating and drinking and giving commands to "someone" at the Lords' Supper. Who was he talking do--the demons who strung him up on the imaginary tree? By the way, who buried him (Paul says this 2 times) in the imaginary ground? The demons?

Quote:

Fails to prove that this man was indeed the messiah.

I already answer this---Paul wasn't writing to convince non-believers that Jesus had been the Messiah.

Quote:

14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

All that Paul is saying here is to PUT ON JC
or if you like be spiritual.
No reference to Jesus' behavious at all.

The implication is that the sinless Jesus hadn't given in to fleshly lusts. Which ones tempted him up there in the sky?

Quote:

1 John
John is always refering to the risen Jesus or God as you mention.

You are simply mistaken. John mentions Jesus in the flesh on several occasions.

Quote:

Didache
What is your point?
These teachings did not come from Jesus. Like Romans 13:9 they come from scriptures or come from inspired people like Paul and John.
So?

Again mistaken, and badly. I even gave you the gospel reference that matches. It doesn't match the OT.

Quote:

Clement is another matter.

And your opinion is what?

ted

NOGO · 12-07-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

TedM
Again mistaken, and badly. I even gave you the gospel reference that matches. It doesn't match the OT.

What do you think this proves?
They match! So what?

How do you know this comes from the HJ?

My claim is simple.
Early Christian apostles like Paul claim divine inspiration.
They claim they have the mind of Christ.
They claim that Christ speaks through them.
So lists of Jesus sayings or commandments that come from his apostles are accumulated. They are a reflection of the communities that produced them and not one man. Many of them are taken straight from scriptures but others are scripture inspired.

None of this can ever prove the existance of an HJ.

TedM · 12-07-2005, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

What do you think this proves?
They match! So what?

How do you know this comes from the HJ?

My claim is simple.
Early Christian apostles like Paul claim divine inspiration.
They claim they have the mind of Christ.
They claim that Christ speaks through them.
So lists of Jesus sayings or commandments that come from his apostles are accumulated. They are a reflection of the communities that produced them and not one man. Many of them are taken straight from scriptures but others are scripture inspired.

None of this can ever prove the existance of an HJ.

There's that word again. Prove.. I don't "know" that the passage came from the HJ, and you may be right. However, the appearances that are attributed to Jesus, the character traits that are attributed to Jesus, and the earthy acts (crucificion, born, blood, flesh, death, burial, rite initiator, words, eating and drinking brother?) that are attributed to Jesus by Paul counter the claim of pure divine inspiration or scriptural. Maybe the sayings that aren't straight from the scriptures attributed to him by others were really said by him.

Orthodox Christianity has no problem with divine inspiration, a Christ who speaks through them, etc.. It just has him starting as a man who lived and died just as Paul says. It seems our differences primarily come down to the lack of further earthly details you would like to see within documents that are primarly not talking about Jesus' life nor his gospel.

ted

Zeichman · 12-07-2005, 09:56 PM

Forgive me for taking a while to respond. Between finals preparation and writing papers I've been a bit busy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Let me get this straight.
You want me to demonstrate that Jesus was a source of revelation about the Christian faith to a believer?

Yes, as no scholar I know of believes that Paul's theology is dependent on the Historical Jesus' teachings.

Quote:

I distibguish between oral source and oral source going back to Jesus.
Oral source may just go back to the first apostles' interpretation of scriptures or direct inspiration.
Surely if Jesus taught and did anything the oral tradition would not only pass on this information but also insist that this came from Jesus himself.

This last statement is best determined on a case-by-case basis, in my opinion. For example, the concern for the poor in James 2 need not appeal to a teaching as it isn't being argued, perhaps the saying merely rings in the memories of the readers.

Quote:

So if Paul heard something which came from Jesus himself then he would have called Jesus a source of revelation.

No, these are the "sayings of the Lord", which Paul distinguishes from his "revelations."

Quote:

If Paul heard "Love one another" from Peter who added "this was taught by Jesus while he was with us". Surely Paul would not pass this one and omit the source?

Case by case scenario seems most reasonable to me.

Quote:

Is it possible that Paul was never told something with the tag "this came from Jesus himself while he was on earth"?

I'm not convinced.

Quote:

Where the hell did you get that?

You said, "One is told that this information was then passed down until it reached Paul's ears and others as well. However Paul does not acknowledge this." I assumed you were referring to the creed in 1 Cor 15. It appears taht I was wrong.

Quote:

And how do these demonstrate an HJ?

I wouldn't say that these "demonstrate" an HJ, but are most easily explained by such. Widespread attestation of ideas among documents/communities which show no knowlege of each other generally could indicate that they go back to some older source (Q1 for the Thomas and Q community, for example). However, some of these sayings are widely attested enough (such as the imperative regarding what to wear, bring, etc.) that the best explained by having roots in a historical figure commanding such.

Quote:

I am not saying that Paul was as highly regarded as any other apostle.
I am saying that he sees himself that way or he can argue that he is equal to any. In other words there is no impediment like "you have not lived with him and never heard him preach and do miracles"

Which would be an amazing silence... if we had any documents which we could confidently say were produced by the Pillars.

Quote:

Not at all. Paul says exactly the opposite.
He says that when he first converted he did not seek flesh and blood.
He waited three years before going to Jerusalem.
The gospel approved was the bringing of the faith to the gentiles.
He did not seek to learn about the man Jesus.
Which is totally bizarre.
Even today if you had a chance to meet Peter or any of the twelve you would ask about Jesus would you not?
You would then be eager to pass on this information to other believers.
Not Paul!

Paul MUST have known about Jesus (whether historical or wholly mythical) if he persecuted the early church, as he claims. And the example of me asking Peter is completely different than Paul asking such. Granting an HJ, Paul and Jesus were of the same generation. Me and Jesus are some eighty generations apart. One would reasonably expect that much independent knowlege about Jesus (whether historical or otherwise) was circulating then.

Quote:

You are talking nonsense.
What I am saying is that Paul should have gone to the source right after his conversion to get all the details about Jesus and then start preaching.
Instead he goes to Jerusalem three years later to talk about preaching to the gentiles not about Jesus.

Given the evolution of Paul's gospel visible in his letters, perhaps it was only later he was advised to so.

Quote:

Paul had been preaching for a long time before this happened.

We can confidently assert very little about Paul's gospel during this period.

Quote:

Which four sayings?
Let's save time tell us also how you know that these sayings come from the HJ?

I refuse to assert that any of them go back to the historical Jesus. I simply don't know enough to prove that individual sayings go back to Jesus. I generally make my statements in the form of negatives.

1Th 4:15-17, 1Co 7:10-11, 1Co 9:14, 1Co 11:23-25 are the verses which I mentioned.

Quote:

Whether the Lord's supper goes back to the HJ is immaterial to the point I am making. Simply put we have two versions of this moment. Paul's version does not mention that Jesus was with his disciples. Mark's version does.
How do you explain this?
My claim is that this goes hand in hand with Paul not claiming Jesus as a source of revelation.
Hand in hand with Paul not passing on any detail of Jesus' life to his followers even after meeting Peter and James.

If Paul was aware of the fact that it was not historical then he would not have said the disciples were around. I think we can both agree on that. It probably functioned as an etiology, known to be outside the realm of history.

Quote:

Is it not possible that they go back to Peter or any one of the initial apostles.
Or all of them as a group?

There's no evidence for this, as far as I know. So little is confidently known about the Pillars and their theology that this is just speculation. I think the evidence points towards Doherty's conclusion (and that of conservatives, ironically), that the Pillars revered Jesus in a way similar to Paul.

Quote:

You claimed lack of controversies as a proof of the HJ.
I give you controversies.

Forgive my lack of clarity, but that's not what i meant. I meant epistolary evidence of controversies regarding Jesus historicity. Not "controversies" in general, there are certainly plenty of those evident in early writings.

Quote:

Now you are saying that this does not prove a MJ.
If Jesus started Christianity and his disciples got the message first hand
then you are right to expect few controversies.
There are many controversies therefore the message did not come from a single source.
It came from scripture and direct revelation as Paul claims.
Each adding his own view and interpretation of scriptures.
That explains the controversies.
That explains why it took more that three centuries and force to have a unified Christianity. That explains why Protestantism has been split from the start and continues to be so.

Now that I've clarified, this section isn't really relevant, but I wanted to address the reasoning here. Modern Protestantism accepts a belief in the HJ, and does not attribute the Hebrew Bible as a source for revelation of Jesus' life. This cannot be said of what you believe the early church to have been.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.