EmmaZunz

Jesus was a "heavenly man":

The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Cor 15:47-49)

Paul clearly says Jesus was a heavenly man, different from earthly men. In fact, if Paul's Jesus was an earthly man, "of dust" like us, then the whole meaning of the passage would fall apart.

Case closed on that.

Re "from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" - this is again that loaded phrase "kata sarka".

Paul does not ever say, "Jesus was a Jew from the Galilee, five foot six and with black hair; his dad was Joseph and his mum was Mary" or anything like that which clearly confirms Jesus was a normal man. Paul is making some sort of mystical, philosophical, theological statement about Christ's heavenly flesh: in some way we don't understand, it was Israelite flesh. Jesus had to take on some sort of flesh in order to be killed, though only in fact a likeness, which fulfilled the "heavenly counterpart" relationship necessary - "By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).

But I'm sure you know all this.

When I read Paul, I see a huge amount of Spirit-Christ talk and just a few little words here and there that read most naturally, in isolation, as HJ talk, but which because of their rarity and clearly loaded and theological import, and in the context of all the SJ talk, I am happy to read as mystical instead.

I don't think Earl or anyone else will ever prove completely that Paul is talking spiritually and mystically here, but I am content to go with that interpretation because of its overwhelming applicability through the whole of Paul's writings. These little words and moments do not for me disrupt the convincing interpretation that Earl has given the Pauline corpus as a whole.

aa5874

Please, please, please!!! Did you not say the resurrection of Jesus was a one time bizarre event???

Toto

This is the problem with the term "historical Jesus" as opposed to the more accurate question of whether Christianity started with a historical individual. You can stretch the term historicist to include all sorts of early Christians who did not think in terms of history or material reality, or "actually happened." If you are going to take that sort of approach, you make the question of whether an early Christian was a "historicist" completely irrelevant to the question of whether there was in fact a historical Jesus.

I think the term historicist is better reserved for post-Enlightenment thinkers who believe that they can recover evidence of a mundane individual from the mythical stories in the gospels.

aa5874

There is no problem at all with the term "historical Jesus" but there are people here who do NOT really care about its meaning simply because they believe their Jesus did exist as a Divine creature.

Incredibly, there are people here who support and even worship the Divine resurrected Jesus but are arguing for an historical Jesus.

Soon some may start arguing for an historical Gabriel that existed as an angel in Galilee and spoke to Mary about the birth of the Divine Jesus.

The QUEST for an historical Jesus by SCHOLARS is blatant admission that the Jesus of the NT was NOT historical but existed as a Divine creature.

GakuseiDon

Well, no. Don't modern-day Christians believe the same? More to the point: Doesn't the author of eBarnabas believe that? I am arguing that Paul is like eBarnabas in that regard.

Again, let me remind you that for my point, I am assuming that Christianity started with an MJ, and that I am arguing whether we can see Paul in terms of the way Doherty sees eBarnabas: an intermediate step between MJ and Gospel HJ. So we would no more expect to see it in Paul than in eBarnabas.

I argue that Doherty only analysed Paul against a historical Jesus derived from the Gospels. He doesn't analyse Paul against an intermediary HJ figure found in eBarnabas. Yet I think it is an obvious point. So is there anything in Paul that would show, assuming that Christianity started with an MJ and that eBarnabas represents an intermediary step, that Paul was not also part of that intermediary step? I.e. Paul believed in a "limited" HJ, where Paul based his Jesus on rumours and personal revelations, and didn't know any Gospel details, just like the author of eBarnabas?

In other words, based on Paul having beliefs similar to the author of eBarnabas (where Christianity started with an MJ and eBarnabas represents an intermediary step), how do we rule out that when Paul writes the following:

Rom 9:3: For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites... 5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came]...

and:

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned... 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

that Paul didn't think that Jesus was a man who came from the Israelites? (And let me remind you, I am arguing from the viewpoint that Christianity started with an MJ, and that Paul represents an intermediary point between MJ and Gospel HJ, just like the Epistle of Barnabas).

Why I think this reading of Paul is stronger than Doherty's reading:

1. We have the example of the Epistle of Barnabas already, so my reading does not propose anything that doesn't already apparently exist
2. It allows us to use the plain readings of Jesus as a man and coming from the Israelites rather than seeing some kind of mystical significance (always a good thing!) and still at the same time allow for a spiritual Jesus to come from heaven.

This is the mythicism of GA Wells, and it does seem to fill the problem areas of Doherty's mythicism.

ph2ter

Mark is certainly aware that he writes allegorical fiction. He invented the time setting (the time of Pontius Pilates, Tiberius), but the elements from which he builds precede him. An interest in historicization is one of those elements and that interest is caused by the strict application of Scripture prophecies.
This is like some rumors about Antichrist which I heard when I was still religious. There were rumors that he is already born somewhere and that he will reveal himself when his time comes. I can imagine that similar rumors about Jewish Messiah circulated among the Jews of the 1st century. This is the reason why gMark was so passionately accepted as a real history. The Jews expected him.

maryhelena

If 'Paul' can be read this way - that a flesh and blood figure was crucified in the past (the distant past for Wells...) that still does not negate 'Paul's idea of a crucifixion/resurrection in a spiritual realm, a 'crucifixion' having salvation potential. A theory, premise, he could not morally ascribe to a flesh and blood crucifixion. i.e 'Paul' needs two crucifixion scenarios for his Jerusalem above and Jerusalem below parallel. One crucifixion will not suffice.

As for E Barnabas - The Wikipedia article mentions an important point that seems to be lacking in this debate:

Epistle of Barnabas

What about E Barnabas being a pre Pauline writing? A stepping-stone, a transition, between the gospel JC story and the Pauline story of neither Jew nor Greek. I don’t see E Barnabas as being a transition between ‘Paul’ and the gospel JC story. Backwards makes no sense. Why go back to a Jewish anointed figure, a messiah or Christ figure, when Pauline philosophy/spirituality is seeking to focus on neither Jew nor Greek?

As to why E Barnabas is making no reference to Pilate etc. - it would make no sense to do so - even with an early gospel writing in front of him. Why? Wikipedia has pinpointed that reason. The “separation of the Gentile Christians from observant Jews”. The gospel JC story, if nothing else, is a very Jewish story. The disciples in gMark asking JC if he is the anointed one, the Christ. Whatever the Jewish history behind the gospel story, that history, and it’s reflection within the gospel JC story, would have to be side-lined if the new Pauline philosophy/spirituality was to sell.

In time, once the new Pauline philosophy/spirituality was up and running, an interest in origins would lead to a reassessment of that earlier gospel JC storyline. The danger would be gone. Historical memories fade. The gospel JC story could become part of the Pauline cultural heritage without the ‘danger’ of becoming ‘contaminated’ by notions of Jewish exclusiveness or entwined in Jewish nationalistic endeavours. Once the early gospel writings became authoritative - only then would the quoting from them, by early Pauline christian writers, be kosher. (Leading, of course, to the idea, much advanced by some mythicists, that the Pauline story preceded the gospel JC story......................)

Toto

I don't think that this exercise will work. You do not really believe that Christianity started with a Mythical Jesus, and you are not going to be very good at following the logic.

Besides whcih, most mythicists are much more willing than Doherty to see interpolations in Paul's letters, especially where there are a few catch phrases that are consistent with an anti-Marcionite Catholic editor.

aa5874

The author of gMark actually did NOT have a direct time line for his Jesus story.

gMark has little or no details to date any event.

For example, the author of gMark simply referred to a character called Pilate. That is all--just Pilate.

It is NOT really known who Pilate was in gMark.

The author of gMark did NOT mention Tiberius at all so if we ASSUME Pilate of gMaRK is Pontius Pilate the Governor then gMark's Jesus could have been crucified sometime between 26-37 CE.

It was the author of gLuke alone that mention Tiberius in the Gospels.

ph2ter

Yes, but gMark mentions also king Herod and his brother Philip. Pilate could be only a Roman prefect of Judaea.