Peter Kirby

That's not what I said. I suggested the possibility that the information Paul received on Jesus as a man did not provide an adequate basis for his doctrines, e.g., that he received no saying of Jesus that would justify his idea of atonement.

I've been playing along with this premise, that all the epistle writers don't say that Jesus was human, but I don't accept it.

As I said near the start of this thread, however, I don't find a lack of mention of details in the life of Jesus, where there is genuinely no such mention, to be anything astounding in a Christian's letter or demanding a special explanation.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

As I said before I am not focussed on the silence part although it does come into play.

Other epistle writers also indicate that they get "commands" from the risen Jesus. The epistles of John and Revelation are explamples.

Even Peter (in Acts) gets a message from God through a dream to bring the faith to the Gentiles.

The historical Jesus was so laching that everyone seem to feel a need to add to the faith by claiming personal revelation.

My conclusion is that Jesus the man was not the founder of the faith.
You cannot conclusively claim that he did not exit but we are not far.

We can conclusively claim that Paul has no need of the HJ since he does not include him as a soure of revelation of the mystery of his beliefs. I do not buy your explanation of why this is so. Paul is a believer at this stage. If he learned that Yahweh send his son to live a life as a man and as part of his plan for salvation how can Paul fail to be interested? It just does not make sense. Paul also says that all other apostles and prophets also got the revelation from the Spirit. How can he fail to mention that Peter, James and others got it directly from the human Jesus?

Roland

And, of course, it isn't just Paul. The silence extends well into the 2nd Century.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin.../OldTable.html

TedM

I'm just skimming this thread for now, but would like to point out some things:

The author of the epistle of John clearly says he knew and heard the living Jesus.

Peter in Acts also clearly says he knew a living Jesus.

While I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your last statment, it is not clear to me how much personal revelation is claimed for the ORIGIN of Christianity. Paul speaks of revelations through scripture and through an unnamed source for his conversion. He doesn't say how the Christians who preceded him became Christians. 1 Cor 15 3-8 mentions appearances after death and burial of Jesus, but it doesn't in any way indicate that this is how Christianity began. Paul's silence about Jesus as a historical person may be seen as odd, but it isn't clear to me that we have good evidence from Paul and other writings that others only received revelation through scripture.

ted

NOGO

John?
Are you talking about the "in the body" referece?

Check Cor 2:12-2 and tell me if that implies a human Jesus on earth.

I have no problem with Acts.

TedM

From Youngs Literal Translation: Seems pretty clear to me.

I think the context starting back in the prior chapter makes the answer to your question obvious, even if Paul does talk about revelation through the Spirit. The wisdom that he says is lacking is wisdom of men. Those who lacked wisdom in verse 8 is therefore the men who crucified Jesus. Therefore, yes, he implies a human Jesus on earth.

ted

NOGO

Well, it sounds clear to you but it is not clear to me.

What this gentleman is talking about is the Word of God.
He is not talking about a man.

You are reading into this.

John M alegro claimed that he is talking about the Amanita Muscaria.
This mushroom is an allucinogen, when eaten caused people to start behaving as if possessed and started speaking strange things - thus the relation with word of God. That is why the man says "our hands did handle".

Ok this may be far-fetched but you can see how easy it is to misread something.

So what is it that this guy handle with his own hands?
That would certainly be a strange way to refer to a man.

look at verse 5
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

Again, like Paul, John receives messages directly from God.

NOGO

Not necessarily. You are jumping to a convenient conclusion.
For Paul there is only God, angels and men but also evil spirits, devils and what not. Read Revelations chanpter 12.

I will have to get you a Paul reference.

TedM

I'm surprised you find this issue pertaining to 1 John even debatable, but maybe my background is distorting the way I look at it. He refers to His Son Jesus Christ, and later in the book talks against those who claim Jesus wasn't really of the flesh. What is the evidence that John's messages are directly from God? The Him in verse 5 is His Son Jesus Christ, not God Himself.

ted

spin

Naaa, Ted. You're accepting this text 2:8b as if it were genuine, but you know that generic "rulers of this age" didn't crucify Jesus. The verse doesn't fit the discourse it's in, separating the HB citations from the bridge that allows Paul to use them -- and naturally those citations have nothing to do with the bit about crucifixion. I've already given you an independent reason to question this text, yet here you are milking it.


spin