LGM

I think you continue to miss my point that the term “historicity” by itself is a nebulous term of little value.

Again, if your point is to claim there once lived a man named Yeshua in the first century, I doubt anyone would object, it’s a very common name. If you want to claim that a supernatural god-man named Yeshua lived in the first century, was born of a virgin, could bring dead people back to life with his mind, and came back to life himself, after being dead for a couple of days, and then flew off the planet, into the clouds, and never was seen again…you have a very different kind of “historical” claim.

Following along yet?

Yes, there have been many men called Jesus.

I’m sure there might have been several men who fit that nebulous description…so what?

I’m not sure what a doctrine of “universal love” is, or why it would be “new”.

Oh, you mean he was killed by some Roman soldiers in Galilee, for refusing to acknowledge their authority?

I supposed that happened to lots of people as well. So what?

If you don’t “accept” the Jesus of the gospels, who allegedly performed all those supernatural miracles, then clearly you are talking about a DIFFERENT person.

Then clearly the Jesus of the gospels is NOT historical, and the gospel accounts are fiction.

Thanks for making my point.

Nope…I’ve simply wiped mythical beings off the planet.

Here, try this…there was a soldier in the Greek army named Achilles who was a very good fighter, had a friend named Patroclus and died in a battle with the Trojans.

Is Achilles not “historical”?

The earliest texts we are discussing, the ones that arose around “Christus”, didn’t mention any details of his alleged earthly biography. None. No boy from Nazareth, no gathering homeboys from Galilee, no traipsing around Palestine telling pithy parables, and performing countless miracles. No pissing off Pharisees, no betrayal by Judas, no triumphant donkey rides into Jerusalem, no audience with Herod, no crucifixion at Calvary, no zombies walking around afterwards…nuthin’.

So the question you keep missing, are the early epistle writers referring to the same “Jesus” you are, when you talk about the one who did “some” of that stuff?

Who said I “don’t like” the stories? I must admit that “mark” is nowhere near the writer Homer or Shakespeare was, but it’s a decent plot. I like it better then that Harry Potter stuff.

“Alexander” and “Augustus” were simply military/political leaders of large empires. I’m not aware of anyone mumbling a creed every Sunday swearing they believe in Alexander’s miraculous birth, and I can’t seem to find any Church of Augustus in my Yellow pages.

yalla

Jake, [and pharaoh and Proverbs 21.9]
Recently Jake made the suggestion that Paul's stigmata may have resulted from participation in a real crucifixion that he underwent as a ritual.
Have I interpreted you correctly Jake?
And some time ago I ventured to suggest that Paul's command to the Corinthians in 1Cor 5.5 may be interpreted as incitement to murder:
1 Cor 5.5
"you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh".
Somebody responded that it was not so but a metaphor of some sort.
Some time after that pharoah broached a discussion of this line but we didn't pursue it far.
And a few days ago Proverbs 21.9 mentioned a modern example of the incident.
All very interesting.
What do folks think of the possibility that Paul is referering to a ritual in 1Cor, akin perhaps to that of Jake's stigmata idea, related perhaps to the eucharist/sacrament ritual?
And that ritual was prominent in Paul's philosophy?
Comments? Thoughts?
cheers
yalla

Gregg

"Undoubtedly." Wow. So I guess when the Vikings talked about their gods eating and drinking and fighting and dying and rising again in Valhalla, they were talking about earthly, fleshly beings who lived just across the fjord, right? Or when the Greeks and Romans talked about their gods running around on each other and fornicating, they were talking about their neighbors in the next apartment? It is simply, utterly impossible for a divine being to do or experience or be anything remotely human without actually "being" human, is that it?

And no, G'Don, I don't have the gospel Jesus and the "historical" Jesus confused. I am very careful to distinguish between them, probably much more so than Doherty is. Since we don't really even know who the hell "historical Jesus" is, though, that's not always easy. My approach is to strip away the miracles, of course, as well as the "vast crowds" that followed Jesus everywhere. I have to figure, though, that even if he didn't have a huge following, he wasn't some dufus who never said anything smart.

Or hey! Was he? Maybe he was just some poor dumb clod who happened to be of David's line (you know what they say, greatness sometimes skips a generation), and he was manipulated by those who believed him to be the Messiah into getting himself killed! Yeah! Some buck-toothed, drooling Clem who never said or did anything worthwhile until his alleged "friends" got him nailed to a cross. I'm thinking Peter Sellers in "Being There." Man, that would sure back up the "argument from embarassment," wouldn't it, not to mention the reluctance of the authorities to execute an idiot! (Whoops, did I just confuse the gospel Jesus with the "historical" Jesus there? Sorry! It's just so hard to tell who's who!)

It could be! We don't know!
I think that's going much to far, to claim that the only revelation Paul received from God was to bring the gospel to the gentiles.

"Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations ..." (Rom. 16:25)

"But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor. 2:7,8)

"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers ... all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:3,4--not directly relevant, but look at the way Paul is interpreting scripture here. Moses' people in the wilderness could "eat" and "drink" of Christ. But the only conceivable way Christ could become "human" and be crucified was to be born an actual historical man? Oh, sorry, was that a rhetorical question?)

"I know a man in Christ who 14 years ago was caught up to the third heaven ... and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter ... And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me ... to keep me from being too elated." (2 Cor. 12:2-7--sounds like a bit more of a revelation than "God appointed me apostle to the Gentiles.")

"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel whicfh was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ ... but he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me ..." (Gal. 1:11-17--Paul clearly states that God revealed Christ to him, not just that God appointed him to share the good news that Christ is for the Gentiles).

(Paul's remarks in Galatians 2:11 are something else, the way he puts the smack down on Cephas, one of the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church. Is it too much to imagine that Cephas was one of those "apostles before me?" Is it too much to imagine that Cephas might have known Jesus personally? Yet Paul does not hesitate to oppose him, to accuse him of insincerity, to say he was not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel. Wow. Did the "historical" Jesus have nothing to say about these matters? How can Paul trust his own revelation over the claims of those who actually beheld the Word incarnate? Again, sorry for all the rhetorical questions ...)

(Paul's reasoning in Galatians 3:15-4:7 is also pretty mind-bending. Admittedly I don't know anything about Greek, but Paul's claim that in God's promise to Abraham and his "offspring," "offspring" refers to Christ and that it would have had to be "offsprings" to refer to many descendants sounds, well, off to me. He apparently takes Christ's ancestry not back to David, but all the way back to Abraham, and declares that Christ is the "offspring" God was referring to. Sorry, but it's hard for me to put any kind of reasoning past a mind like Paul's. That he could believe God's Son could be "born of woman" and "born under the law" without actually being born on Earth, doesn't sound like much of a stretch to me.)

Now, Ephesians 3:1-13, I can see where you might think that Paul's revelation was solely that the Gentiles are fellow heirs with the promise. I don't agree. I believe he is saying first that the "mystery of Christ" was revealed to him, and then that he, Paul, had an insight into that mystery "as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by his Spirit" (there is a very strong reference to the other apostles and prophets getting their information about Christ from revelation, not from knowing a human Jesus or hearing from those who knew him). This insight is his own, that the mystery which has been revealed to himself and other apostles and prophets is also for the Gentiles. Listen to him boast, in his humble manner: "To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of the Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God" (Eph. 3:8,9).

Is my interpretation contradicted by Col. 1:25-28? I don't think it is. The thing revealed, at first, is the mystery itself, the mystery of Christ. That this mystery is for the Gentiles is not the mystery itself, it's a further insight into the mystery. Paul does seem to be sharing the glory a bit here, although again, I don't know Greek, so I don't know if the translation I have is accurate (I'm using an RSV right now). I'm not really sure what Paul is saying by, "To them God chose to make known how great among the gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery". It's definitely open to speculation.

Even if we do allow for your interpretation, though (which, if I'm understanding correctly, is that the "mystery hidden for ages and generations" that has been revealed to Paul (and perhaps to others) is that God has a plan for the salvation of all humankind, not just the Jews, through Christ), it still says nothing about the historicity of Jesus. In fact, we can now say with reasonable certainty that there was no Great Commission, that the "historical" Jesus, whatever else he may have said, clearly did NOT tell his followers to preach the good news to the Gentiles.
Which, again, I'm not claiming he didn't. I still don't think that his sole revelation was that the gospel was also for the Gentiles. Paul knew others believed in Christ, but this does not tell us whether this Christ they believed in was once an actual human being who walked in Jerusalem. And Paul dismisses their beliefs until and is not converted to them (and even then, it seems, he still has his doctrinal differences with the Jerusalem group) until he himself has a revelation of Christ.

Edited to add: I want to elaborate on this. From the time all the supposed "eyewitnesses" of Jesus all died off, and then anyone who knew them personally died off, Christianity has been passed on by people with no direct connection whatsoever to the "historical Jesus." Even without this connection, however, the faith continued to be transferred from person to person and from generation to generation. Also, we know that many religions have started without any historical god-man as their foundation. So, it's as likely as anything else that the Christians Paul persecuted didn't get their faith from witnessing the career of a historical Jesus, or from listening to someone who did. Rather, some person, or several people, could have had similar "revelations" about the Christ from being exposed to (even if indirectly) Greek Platonism, the pagan mysteries, mystical Judaism, the Jewish scriptures, etc., and started preaching about their revelations. Judaism itself traces its origins back to God suddenly up and speaking to Abraham one day ... Abraham doesn't have to see God incarnate to be convinced or to convince others. Islam began with nothing but Muhammad's claim that the Angel Gabriel spoke to him. And so on.

Another point: Not everyone who hears about Jesus becomes a Christian, and many who do admit they are only "nominal" Christians who have never experienced the Holy Spirit or "felt" Christ in them. So hearing about Christianity and receiving a revelation from God about Christ are different things.See above.

GakuseiDon

Yep. Undoubtedly. Even Doherty agrees to that. It's just that Doherty places the story in a "spiritual realm".

I've answered this before. Where do YOU think the Romans believed that their gods fornicated with mortal women? On earth or in a "spiritual realm"? I have evidence to show that the Romans believed that their gods were historical. Can you show me evidence that places their "earthly" stories in a "spiritual realm"?

Here are a couple of true/false questions:
1. Roman beliefs of the day are relevent to the study of whether Jesus was a myth or not. True or false?
2. Romans believed that the "earthly" stories of their gods took place in a "spiritual realm". True or false?

My answers: (1) True. (2) False. What are your answers? If your answer to (1) is also "True", then let's start investigating (2)!

If this is not yet another rhetorical question, what is your answer? And what is your evidence for your answer?

I can give you passages from Plutarch, Tacitus, Herodotus and others that show they thought their gods were historical people who acted at some point in their history. What have you got?

The "only" revelation?

IMO Paul believed that Christ appeared to him for him to go to the Gentiles. Paul, due to his great knowledge of Judaism, found the mystery that had been hidden from everyone (I assume even the first apostles) -- that according to Scriptures, Christ came for the Gentiles. Note the use of "grace" at the start and at the end below (in blue):

Gal 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus...
Gal 2:Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Here are your examples. I think they are consistent with my view:

"Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations ..." (Rom. 16:25)

"But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor. 2:7,8)

No, that one is technically a "strawman". A strawman is when you give a position to someone else that they don't actually hold. A rhetorical question is one that you ask where you don't expect an answer since the answer is obvious.

You see, that one's a strawman.

That one is a strawman (if I understand your point correctly).

Yep, those are rhetorical questions.

That one is "imagination".

"Solely"? Strawman.

No problem with speculation. I think it is consistent with what I wrote above though.

Yes, I agree.

You may be right.

Look, I certainly think it is possible, and I don't think that mythicism should be ruled out out-of-hand. Most of my comments simply relate to Doherty mythicism and his unsupported views about "earthly" happenings in "spiritual realms". But given that the amount of evidence for a historical Jesus is so little, I think it is fair and reasonable to ask whether there really was a historical Jesus, or even if there were, whether anything can be recovered about that person.

True enough.

yalla

GDon,
Can I ask you what is your interpretation of 1Cor 5.5?
Do you think Paul means to kill the fornicator when he tells the Corinthians to destroy the flesh?
cheers
yalla

Clivedurdle

Thank you Gregg!

May I refer people to Dake?

http://www.dake.com/

I am not sure how many people here have had their entire church upbringing as I have on Dake, but all you have quoted above Gregg is the formal teaching of the main pentecostal churches.

I remember the three hour sermons for example on manna being Christ and understood the purpose of the old testament as not being replaced by the new but prophecying Christ, so we were continually looking at it!

The difference is that I have joined up a few dots and did a bit of comparison and reverse engineering - so christ obviously is a mythical figure!

I have said this elsewhere - I really see no problem with Christians believing christ to be mythological! They don't need a historical one to wash away their sins!

But my xian upbringing was not the boring dead protestant one that is floating around here.

LGM

This is an excellent point.

If a mystical, intermediary savior Christ, who revealed himself thru "visions", and inbetween the lines of Jewish scripture, was good enough for Paul and his messianic savior cult...

...why do today's Christian need a historical myth to bolster this god's sin forgiving and eternal life granting magic powers?

Perhaps you need a new story after a few generations pass, and Paul and the gang are still in their graves?

Clivedurdle

OK Zeus and Hercules were on earth. Does that make them historical?

Wow, I have evidence that xians believe their god - jesus - is historical.

GakuseiDon

From a pagan perspective -- yes.

Excellent!

GakuseiDon

I hope not. 1Ti 1:20 seems to suggest an ex-communication. What's your take on this?