GakuseiDon

His gospel message, yes. Other things would depend on what he claims. For example, I think it is reasonable to assume that he learned something about Jesus Christ from those he persecuted.

Agreed, we should go by Paul's claims on his sources for those bits of information he reveals. (I think we should make sure we cite where we get our information from Paul, also, so we can check these.)

Thanks for (1). We'll continue on the assumption that Paul thought Jesus to be earthly, until you feel we need to pull this back. Here are passages to support my points (2) and (3):

Jesus died in Paul's near past:

Jesus died and was resurrected, then appeared to James (1 Cor 15). This seems to be the same James that Paul met (Gal 1:18); if this is correct, then Jesus died in Paul's near past.

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem:

Paul says that "Christ crucified" is a stumbling block:

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness

Then, he quotes scriptures to say that the stumbling block was in Zion (Jerusalem):

Rom 9:32 For they [Israel] stumbled at that stumbling stone.
Rom 9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame".

Next, he quotes scriptures to say that the Deliverer will come out of Zion, in terms of a new covenant. This strongly identifies the "Deliverer" with Jesus:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Rom 11:27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins".

Here, I'm assuming that Zion refers to the earthly Jerusalem, which is consistent with the idea that Jesus was earthly. I've heard someone suggest that it may refer to the Heavenly Jerusalem, though I can't see how even a cosmic Christ, much less an earthly one, could be crucified in the realm of God.

dog-on

If you can support this belief with evidence, sure.

Indeed. I'll respond to the rest in a separate post, as it goes directly to the falsification of the JGSMT.

dog-on

That the James in 1 Cor 15 is, in fact, the same James in Gal 1:18 seems to, in fact, be the case, prima facie.

That this fact logically leads to a conclusion that "Jesus died in Paul's near past", is not necessarily supported.

In fact, James could have "seen" Jesus in the same way as Paul and, in addition, based on Paul's comments, seems to have had a different message to that which Paul believes to be the "true" gospel, especially regarding the law.

Regardless, there is no specific assertion that the Jerusalem group actually physically met Jesus, while he was on earth, in Paul.

(I hope my wording is not confusing here.)



Well, here I will accept your assertion that Paul believes that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

Now we need some evidence that this actually occurred and that Paul did not just simply believe that this must be the case due to the exact scriptures you just quoted. The same scriptures which we have already agreed were one of Paul's sources.

GakuseiDon

It is a bit confusing, I'm afraid. The question here is only the timing:
1. Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day.
2. He appeared to a number of people, including James.
3. Paul personally met this James.

Now, if the timing between (1) and (2) is very small, then Jesus had to have died at some time in Paul's recent past, assuming that the James in (2) is the same as the James in (3).

There is more that can be given on the timing, but I'd like to establish the logic of the above first.

Thank you.

We need to look outside of Paul's claims of knowledge from scriptures:

How did Paul know that Christ was called "Jesus Christ", in your opinion?

dog-on

Establishing timing in this case is difficult due to:

1.) The fact that Paul never places Jesus in a particular time and;
2.) the fact that Paul does not specifically relate in which context, exactly, James knew Jesus.

Without making an a priori assumption, or without using sources external to Paul which are, themselves, under suspicion, (that Jesus lived in the time of Pilot, something which Paul never specifies), it seems impossible to determine specific timing, as it would relate to Paul's understanding of it.

Based on the evidence, there seems to be two viable possibilities:

1. He heard it elsewhere, or;

2. He, himself, derived it from scripture.

This is an interesting point to investigate further. What is the most likely possibility? Maybe that Paul heard of Jesus Christ, prior to his revelation.

If we take as likely that Paul did, indeed, learn of the name Jesus Christ from outside sources, does this necessarily point towards historicity?

Is it just as likely that if Paul did learn the name Jesus Christ from outside sources that these outside sources did, themselves, derive the name Jesus Christ from the scriptures and all we are left with are the morsels in Paul's writings regarding this source, ie. the Jerusalem group?

aa5874

No assumption can help you when the letter writer called Paul constantly claimed the character called Jesus was the son of God who was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

It is irrelevant from where the character was assumed to have resurrected or ascended, since there is no external corroborative source anywhere that can place Jesus of the letter writers on earth.

The historicity of Jesus just cannot be confirmed by assumptions .

bacht

But isn't this exactly what the Epistle to the Hebrews describes?

GakuseiDon

I don't think it is quite that impossible to determine the timing. For example, Paul uses the past tense to describe Jesus's death, so Paul seems to be putting Jesus in the past, from his perspective. That gives us an end date.

What about a start date? Paul provides a few clues:

"Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came."

Note the "giving of the law". Christ was born under the law (Gal 4:4). Paul writes that the law was added because of transgressions, "till the Seed should come" to whom Abraham's promise was made. (Gal 3:19)

The law was added by Moses. Christ was born under the law, which was needed until "the Seed" (who was Christ) should come.

At the least, Paul clearly indicates that Jesus was born at some point after Moses, and died at some point before Paul. If Jesus was born after Moses, and appeared to James after his resurrection, and Paul met James, then isn't it most likely that Jesus was born closer to Paul's time than to Moses' time? If Jesus was the "firstfruits" of the resurrection for those who have fallen asleep (1Cr 15:20), how likely is it that the "firstfruits" began a 1000 years earlier?

This suggests that Paul thought Jesus had died in Paul's recent past.

No. But it does tell us that Paul perhaps learned things about Jesus from others.

Sure, it is possible. But consider what we have already agreed upon: Paul believed that Jesus Christ was an earthly being who was crucified in Jerusalem. Now, note that Paul had been persecuting the churches in Christ in Judea; and that Jerusalem is located in Judea:

Gal 1:22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which [were] in Christ.
Gal 1:23 But they were hearing only, "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once [tried to] destroy."

Paul was now preaching the faith of the churches in Judea. If Paul was preaching about an earthly Jesus Christ who had been crucified in Jerusalem and then raised from the dead, isn't it likely that this was the faith he had been trying to destroy?

Paul talks about their faith being futile if Christ hadn't been raised from the dead:

1Cr 15:14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching [is] empty and your faith [is] also empty...
1Cr 15:17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith [is] futile; you are still in your sins!
1Cr 15:18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished...
1Cr 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, [and] has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To put the "GDon hypothesis" together:
1. Jesus was an earthly being who was crucified in Jerusalem in Paul's near past.
2. Early Christians -- including those in Judea --believed that Christ had been raised from the dead.
3. Paul persecuted them, but through revelation ended up believing they were right.
4. Paul received a new message directly from God -- via revelation and "from no man" -- that Christ's death and resurrection applied to Gentiles as well.

I agree that none of this PROVES historicity, but I think it is established firmly from the information in Paul. And if the church in Jerusalem believed what Paul believed -- that an earthly Jesus had been crucified in Jerusalem in the near past -- I think the most likely conclusion is that they believed it because it actually happened.

I would like to look at your hypothesis now, dog-on. Can you lay it out, please? (I will also address any points you would like to raise about what I've written above).

Toto

This assumes that the appearance to James and others happened shortly after Jesus' death. At least one hypothesis has Jesus being a figure from remote history who started appearing to people in the first century.

I favor the idea that 1 Cor 15 is interpolated.


That was some sleight of hand. Is there any reason to assume that "churches in Judea" implies "crucifixion in Jerusalem?" You really have absolutely no evidence for a crucifixion in Jerusalem, or anywhere else on earth, in Paul's letters.

aa5874

Your hypothesis is completely flawed you are already assuming what you want to prove.

You must prove within reason that Jesus did exist and was crucified. Assertions are not proofs.

You have assumed that the letters contain historical information, but it is not known whether there are any real events in the letters. All the information about Jesus in the letters may have been what the letter writer believed was true and not what was witnessed at all by the writer.

And further, you must pre-suppose that there are historical facts in the letters without ever attempting to show that there are really so.

And, look at your conclusion, "if the church believed what Paul believed, then they believed it happened."

You have no hypothesis, just a belief based on pre-suppositions that may be totally false.