ApostateAbe

OK, sorry, so do you think Paul wrote about Jesus being crucified?

Toto

If Paul wrote in the first century, I suspect that this was a later gnostic interpolation. It fits the story about Jesus as the son of the higher god tricking the agents of the demiurge to crucify an innocent (I would have to look up the details - it's a very intricate argument.)

ApostateAbe

Wow.

spamandham

Continuing ...


You just admitted that the gospels are origins stories, which is good, because that's what the best scholarship (Talbert) says anyway. There is nothing implausible with the idea that a crucified man would be buried. Josephus records such a thing. So there is no reason to reject the idea that Jesus was buried if you take the position that the Gospels are reasonably historical and not merely stories desigend to explain a later set of beliefs and traditions. You are rejecting the idea because it does not fit an HJ presumption, not because it's simply implausible.

Supposing that Jesus had become carrion chow, how could the gospel writers get away with claiming he had been buried instead? Surely all those Galatians who you think witnessed the crucifixion would have known Jesus was not buried. A burial is not even an important aspect of the story...until you recognize that it is based on OT scripture, just as is the entire script from the moment Jesus arrives in Jerusalem.


You have previously argued that Isaiah 53 is past tense and thus did not form a part of messianic expectations, but was instead quote mined after the fact. If that were true, then we would expect the author to mold Isaiah 53 to the known facts rather than mold facts to fit Isaiah 53.

You seem to now be agreeing that Isaiah 53 was in fact a part of messianic expectations of the time? If so, then can we agree that the passion is completely ahistorical and is constructed directly from Isiah 53 and Psalm 22 because they were the messianic expectations of this particular group of Christians?

...close enough for government work. The gospel writers did not meticulously ensure that every single thing they wrote was exactly and pedantically in accordance with the precise words Isaiah scripted. They're just stories. To any reasonable reader, Isaiah 53 refers to a refusal to defend oneself, and Jesus does the same thing.

After arguing that Jesus had probably become carrion chow, you are now arguing that the fact he was not buried with the wicked is evidence of some aspect of historicity in the burial scene?

Regardless, in Mark (which most scholars believe to be the earliest of the 4 canonical gospels), Joseph of Arimathea is described as being a 'prominent member of the council' - the same wicked group that just had Jesus crucified. Surely that counts.

Christians refer to themselves as children of the Lord. There is no need for the gospel Jesus to have blood offspring, because he has spiritual offspring. (although it appears that an earlier version of the gospels might have had Jesus married to Mary Magdeline at the wedding at Cana).

However, if Jesus were the historical founder of a real cult, we would expect that he would have actually had real blood offspring - lot's of them. Look at any cult you like and you'll see that pattern. The cult leader almost always has tons of wives/lovers and tons of children. The sexual repression of early Christianity fits with what we see in other ascetic cults; no-one is supposed to have sex but the cult leader, and he makes up for everyone else!

...or perhaps because in the mind of the writer, they were equivalent.

I wouldn't expect that. I would expect the authors to apply creative license as they see fit to make a more interesting/compelling story. Any Jewish reader would easily see the connections in spite of that.

I guess I don't see that as terribly important. The author had to add details to create a story, else he would simply be regurgitating Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. There are lot's of other details not found in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 that make the story more interesting as well. Sure, it's *possible* that Jesus really was crucified between two thieves and that's why the gospels record that, but then, why don't they record what really happened to his body as well if the author is obsessed with historical accuracy?

Although there is a *possible* scriptural source for the thieves, found in Jeremiah 2:26

As a thief is disgraced when he is caught, so the house of Israel is disgraced? they, their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets.

The Judas Iscariot wiki has a good summary of the scholarly view on Judas in regard to this:

Matthew's reference to the death as fulfilment of a prophecy "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" has caused some controversy, since it clearly paraphrases a story from the Book of Zechariah (Zechariah 11:12-13) which refers to the return of a payment of thirty pieces of silver.[24] Many writers, such as Augustine, Jerome, and John Calvin concluded that this was an obvious error.[25] However, some modern writers have suggested that the Gospel writer may also have had a passage from Jeremiah in mind,[26] such as chapters 18 (Jeremiah 18:1?4) and 19 (Jeremiah 19:1?13), which refers to a potter's jar and a burial place, and chapter 32 (Jeremiah 32:6-15) which refers to a burial place and an earthenware jar.[27]

I'm not sure there's a god argument that this aspect of the story derives from Jewish scripture. But it's easy to see motives for gentile Christians to disparage Peter, who represents Jewish Christianity, and portray him as hypocritical and blind to the truth. Paul does the same thing when he rakes Peter over the coals.

show_no_mercy

What's with this "wow"? Do you not know that the first person who collected Paul's epistles had this very same theology?

Who is the "god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4)? It's not much of a stretch to think that this is the god of "the rulers of this age" (1 Cor 2:6-8) who crucified Jesus... and Paul thought that Jesus' crucifixion was done according to the law (Rom 8:3-4). These rulers of this age were possibly the same "rulers of the heavenly places" (Eph 3:10).

Marcion's version (which should be considered the first version known) of Eph 3:9 says "the mystery hidden for ages from the God who created all things". The god of this age being the god of the Jews is more consistent with Paul's disdain for the god of the Jews' law (Gal 3:10,13). Paul calls the law of the god of the Jews the "ministry that brought death" (2 Cor 3:6-8).

spamandham

Nice analysis.

But supposing for a moment that the author really did mean what the common translation says. In order for Paul to be quoting an human earthly Jesus, Paul would have to have met up with Jesus after he was delivered for crucifixion, but before he was crucified (which happen on the same day), and have Jesus tell him in the past tense about the night he was delivered up. That's such an absurd scenario that surely even the most H of HJers must admit it can't have happened like that.

Instead, this would still have to be a quote from a resurrected Jesus and not an earthly human Jesus - i.e., part of Paul's vision(s).

spamandham

Personally, I am not trying to *disprove* a historical Jesus, but rather, simply make the case that a non-historical Jesus is a simpler proposition. ...and I think I've made that case.

That said, there are many, many times where Paul makes points on morality that happen to align with things Jesus is quoted as saying in the gospels. Yet Paul does not call upon the authority of Jesus to drive those points home. It's true that even if he did, that would not tell us for certain whether he got the quotes from a historical Jesus or from a vision, but the lack of such things is damning to an HJ presupposition but not to ahistorical position.

If Jesus is only ever known in a vision, I wouldn't expect a coherent train of moral imperatives to be imparted for Paul to quote, because visions are rarely coherent. Paul even tells us his vision wasn't coherent, so we know that to be the case.

aa5874

But, another Church writer, Hippolytus, has disputed Tertullian's "Against Marcion". Marcion did not use any Pauline writings he used the doctrine of Empedocles according to Hippolytus. And Origen stated that Marcion did not mutilate any Gospels.

The information from the Church about Marcion may be bogus.

Elijah

In 2 Cor4:4 I’m not sure why the god of this world isn’t just the regular old god he is talking about in the rest of the paragraph, sort of like hardening the heart of pharaoh?

1 Cor 2:6, if the rulers of this age are doomed to pass away then they would probably be temporal regular ol earthly rulers, not spiritual rulers which would be eternal.

Not sure how you are getting to that interpretation of Rom 8:3.

You may be correct about the rulers in Eph 3:10 being spiritual rulers but again them gaining wisdom of god would suggest a more temporal kind of ruler. It could be saying that through the spread of the church the wisdom of god is being made known to the rulers and the heavenly place is the church being mentioned where the rulers are gaining this. You may be right though because it does look like he is saying your take, it just doesn’t make much sense that way.

I don’t know about connecting Paul’s problem with obedience to the Law to Marcion’s problem with the OT understanding of God but maybe I’m missing the connection there. I agree that Paul, like Marcion represent the spreading of a more philosophical understanding of god but I don’t think Paul was as quick to call the god of the OT the devil. He could have believed it but the mission at the time wasn’t to correct them on their take on god but to establish Jesus as the Messiah. He also relies on OT scripture to say that this was all part of god’s plan so saying that the people he was using to support his position were devil worshipers wouldn’t help much. It would also hurt the sales pitch to the gentiles about being integrated into the promise of Judaism if the promise was given by the devil.

show_no_mercy

Marcion didn't think the god of the Jews was evil. He was a god of justice.