Julian

Nitpick. Marcion was not a gnostic. Being a docetic is not the same as being a gnostic.

Julian

The Bishop

Good.
But what is it that you regard as relevant evidence? I'm afraid all I see are speculations about interpretation of one man's writings which a) could equally well be true or nonsense, we can never know, and b) actually has no relevance to whether Jesus the man walked on Earth.

Nothing from that period is well demonstrated by "hard" evidence. But everything from that period about people not prominent enough to be depicted in contemporaneous statues, buildings, inscriptions and coins, is, historically and documentarily, equally if not less well-attested than the Gospel accounts, plus considerable other documentation. Hardly anything we believe we know about Greek and Roman history dates from the time itself, but only from accounts written decades later. Why is the Gospel account of Jesus denigrated on those accounts, and, say, General Varus's army's destruction in the Teutoberger forest in 9CE, not?

But surely Paul's point was that it was the death and resurrection that mattered?

In any case, I'm not amongst those who accept arguments from silence for the same reason I don't accept "gap" arguments from Creationists.

yalla

Gidday Bishop,
This comment of yours.."the evident reason is that the people he describes are already well known as Apostles to the Christian community - and they must know the Apostles from Gospel tales no less than they know about Jesus." does not follow. At the time of Paul, according to standard chronolgy, the gospels had not been written. It would have been impossible for people, in Paul's time, to have known of these people from the gospels.
Later, perhaps much later, these names were included in the gospels but that could have been directly or indirectly derived from Paul. There is no doubt that the gospels claim that these persons and others met a real live JC but that is not evident in Paul. Such use of these names is not a hint of gospel tradition but a hint that the writer of "Mark" utilised for his own purposes names that we find in Paul. You have the sequence reversed.

Paul's knowledge of JC, and subsequent faith, is that "god was pleased to reveal his son in [NOT "TO" please note''] me" [Galatians]. This is taken to mean by inner revelation not by physical appearance of a real live body.
And Paul does not regard the "pillars" as superior in their awareness just merely preceding him by an indetirminate time, in fact he appears to be in conflict with them. There is no reason to suppose, from Paul, and he is our only source for this era, that anyone met a real live JC.
Are you suggesting that James, as the brother of the lord, must have been kin to JC?
I can argue against such an interpretaion if you are interested.
cheers
yalla
EDIt i'm getting 'poster too busy' messages and I'm not sure if I'm getting through or double posting or what.

yalla

Gidday Bishop,
I'm still getting flak from the server so I'll post this and then retire for a while.

The reason I wrote about kata sarka is that it is used as support for JC being "of the flesh'' and thus an HJ.
But if Paul is using it as a metaphor, as I have outlined, and not as meaning JC was a real body, then it removes "kata sarka" and "born of woman" as supports for an HJ belief.
And the silence intensifies.

And clearly, IMO, he is using it metaphorically in reference to his own crucifixion, the resurrection of other believers and in another instance when he is referring to the sons of Abraham.
One of whom is born "according to the flesh" [like JC] and one who is NOT [but born "according to the spirit'']. Now obviously both are born via the usual human sexual reproductive birth mother type process. Yet they are referred to differently, ie metaphorically, because Paul wishes to contrast them as the future of Israel and their relationship to god.
Romans 9.7.
I submit that ''kata sarka'' and ''born of woman'' are NOT evidence for an HJ.
cheers
yalla

hope this gets thru.

mikem

For someone who did not hold the other apostles in high regard Paul seems to spend a lot of time to- ing and fro -ing to see them! Why do you suppose that was? (Galatians 1:17 - 2:1) If his revelation was on a par with their experience of Christ why would he do that? Why would he confer with them as he says in 2:1 "lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain"? Why "running in vain"? It is clear that Paul had to defer to their greater authority, and that I suggest is because they had known Jesus the man. He had to ensure that his gospel did not conflict with anything they may have been able to tell him about their gospel because it carried greater authority. And why? Because they were Jesus immediate disciples.

Clivedurdle

There is no reason to assume they had greater authority! Paul is preaching the greatest story ever told, so are this other lot! It is basic good sense to check you are singing off the same hymn sheet - and in any case they were clearly not in agreement. If Paul saw himself as somehow subservient he would have backed down - he did not! Paul saw himself as equal cos god had spoken directly to him! Why does Paul not comment - "oh OK Jesus told you that at...I think he meant..." ?

Actually are there any Gospel stories that the alleged words of Jesus would have resolved in any disputes of Paul? Is the argument from silence much stronger because the words and thoughts of Jesus are not used by Paul?

Amaleq13

That is clearly not the case. He describes seeing them twice and only after God told him to go. The first time was three years after he started preaching and the next was fourteen years later!

Paul shows little regard for their "authority" and repeatedly asserts that he is their equal.

Chunk

I have a question, which may seem obvious to everyone else. If so, sorry.

But why?

If there were a group of Gnostics going round believing in salvation solely through knowledge

and Marcion teaching about Christ not being the son of God

and the Jews who found a crucified Messiah a "stumbling block"

and a group of 12 people + paul teaching about a revelation of knowledge and a messiah figure who lived in the distant past (possibly in another spiritual realm)

...

why would anyone come to write the Gospels? Would wold anyone make up a recent historical figure and call him the son of god and Messiah?

The idea that people were able to do it by mistake seems beyond rediculous, and if there were all these other groups believing in soemthing quite different why was the gospel idea ever accepted?

Ive heard the idea of them being "faith documents", designed to create a fictional life for the Christ and that they were never intended to be taken as fact. This seems a very strange thing to do, I just cant get my head round the purpose in doing that.

Also, doesnt it then beg the question how people could be stupid enough to then accept fiction as fact?

Llyricist

The only way you make this inferrence is through knowledge of the gospels. It can't be made from Paul alone. We simply don't know who or what "the 12" signifies from Paul.

Nice story, but it is made of straw, and you are still importing gospel knowledge, in Paul, Cephas is mentioned separately from "the 12", you have him as being part of the 12.

There are numerous other possibilities that could be spun by people NOT trying to discredit the very idea.

Llyricist

Have you ever heard of Scientologists? Mormons? WMD's?

Shoot, how can people be stupid enough to accept a god sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself over something he knew full well would happen, and had all the power needed to prevent as fact?