Doug Shaver

Yes, I'm challenging the allegedly obvious solution, but all you have in defense of any Josephan reference to Jesus is a scholarly consensus, and to keep throwing that up is an argument from authority, nothing more. There are times when an argument from authority is appropriate, but not in this debate on this particular issue. Since I'm disagreeing with that scholarly consensus, any appeal to it is purely worthless as a counterargument.

ApostateAbe

An "appeal to authority" is about the only way to demonstrate the prima facie meaning of the evidence, except by simply presenting the evidence to be observed. To be fair, maybe I exaggerated when I said, "Paul spells it out." I will analyze the evidence I gave, and I will give you my explicit reasoning.

Here is Romans 7:4.

In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Here is Romans 14:8-9.

If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

Here is my reasoning:

1. Paul believed that Jesus's resurrection was necessary so that Christians can belong to Jesus.
2. Belonging to Jesus is the definition of the Christian religion that Paul advocated.
3. Therefore, Paul believed that the death and resurrection of Jesus was the central purpose to the Christian religion.
4. Therefore, the omission of any mention of the life of Jesus can be easily explained as Paul believing that the death/resurrection of Jesus was the only relevant purpose of the life of Jesus.

aa5874 also brought to my attention Galatians 4:4-5, which reinforces that same central doctrine, but this time it explicitly connects God's purpose for the life of Jesus to the same end goal: the redemption of Christians.

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.

If you believe something differently about Paul, then I think you need to explain your position, so that it can be plausibly accepted that we would expect Paul to write more about the life of Jesus than he did.

aa5874

Let the RECORDS show that Jesus was considered God's OWN Son BEFORE he was SENT. See Romans 8.3 & 32.

One cannot use the Pauline writings for Heretical purposes. The Canon of the Church SIMPLY cannot be HERETICAL unless it was IDIOTS who compiled the Canon.

The Canon of the Church MUST be Compatible with the doctrine of the Church and HJ is HERESY and CONDEMNED by the Church.

It is, in effect, an OBVIOUS FALSE assertion that the Pauline Jesus was just a man.

See Galatians 1.1-12. Galatians 1.1-12 is COMPLETELY COMPATIBLE with the teachings of the Church.

Jesus was NOT a man at all but was considered GOD INCARNATE in the NT or the Child of a Holy Ghost.

Doug Shaver

Whatever meaning one claims it has, prima facie or otherwise, one demonstrates that meaning by presenting a reasoned argument showing how the evidence implies whatever conclusion one claims that it is evidence for.

I don't understand Paul to have been asserting anything on your list. You're interpreting him one way, I'm interpreting him another way.

However, I don't have time for this kind of hermeneutic duel. If you want to declare victory on that basis, go for it.

ApostateAbe

That's fine, I'll just move on to "probabilistic difficulty" #2 on your list.

aa5874

You are simply wasting your time.

The HJ argument would have been regarded as HERESY so it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to use the NT CANON to PROMOTE the HJ argument.

You are NO longer involved in a rational and logical discussion but is using the NT Canon as one who RELIES on KNOWN PERJURY in court trials.

The HJ argument must RELY on some other source of antiquity not the non-heretical writings of the Church.

blastula

Then you shouldn't have cited it as supporting historical knowledge in Hebrews or against the claim, "From the epistles, we learn nothing of what he said or did between his birth and his death."

ApostateAbe

It was given as a rebuttal to the point that, "Of the 27 canonical books, only the four gospels say anything about the life that Jesus might have had before his crucifixion." It is not required that they present accurate historical information of the life of Jesus--only information that the authors believed reflects the life of Jesus. It is relevant mainly because of the unlikely solution put on the table by Shaver and Doherty, that many of the early Christian authors didn't even believe in a physical earthly Jesus. It is not about me offering evidence for a historical Jesus. It is only about what the early Christians apparently believed.

Toto

Since the scene is obviously fictional, why do you think that the authors believed it to be fact?

ApostateAbe

If anyone else thinks that there is a significant possibility that the Agony in the Garden is a work of fiction (not just religious myth), then please let me know.