mens_sana

How about: from necessity. The cult leader, whom the members thought was the Messiah, got crucified. Something convinced some members that he was raised from the dead and taken to heaven. Along the way "son of God" became "Son of God". So now someone has to explain why a god got killed: there has to be a "plan" behind this catastrophe. And the handiest plan involved "sacrifice".

Amaleq13

Fair enough. If and when you have the time and energy, I will continue to be interested. Especially given its inclusion in your subsequent list of defensible point. I can see where one could put forth a reasonably good defense of all the rest (though I'm not sure about 4) but not 8.

GakuseiDon

Thanks Gerard. That's a pretty reasonable approach. I'd be interested in anything that came of such studies also.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the list! Yes, those positions put you squarely in the historist camp. I will respect your desire not to debate the list at this time.

I will, with your permission, ask a follow on question.

Seeing visions of a dead guy merely makes a ghost story, and the resurrection appearances in the gospels do share a few characteristics of Greek and Roman ghost stories.

Assuming that you accept the standard chronology, how do you get from weird visions in just a few years to the Pauline Jesus who is more a cosmological principle of salvation; to the point where a historical figure rooted in geography and politics can scarcely be gleened?

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Correct, as Luke admits (the disciples think they are seeing a phantom). But seeing visions of a dead guy and also noticing that his tomb is empty could easily lead beyond ghost stories.

I do not think that point is ever reached in genuine Paul. He says that Jesus was from the line of David; that he was the seed of Abraham; that he was born of a woman (that is, he was human); that he taught about divorce, missions, and the apocalypse; that he was crucified on a cross; that he was buried; and that he is the messiah. Paul is also convinced, of course, that Jesus Christ was exalted to the right hand of God at or after his resurrection; hence some of his more divine statements.

The Jesus that I read about in genuine Paul is very much like the Augustus I read about in some inscriptions and later texts; he was very much a man, but he was also considered god, son of God, lord, master, savior, root of the gospel message, and so forth.

This point may be reached in the pseudo-Paulines (Colossians and Ephesians). In the Pauline corpus, the trajectory is from more historical to more mythical, not vice versa.

Ben.

Malachi151

Luke's account is nothing more than an attempt to refute existing Marcionic type claims of Jesus being a phantom. None of that stuff actually took place, Luke is just writing from Mark, and then adding in details to refute the then prevalent claim that Jesus was immaterial.

Paul's one mention of "born under the law" is right in the middle of his accounts of allegorical stories, and Paul said elsewhere that he told people whatever they wanted to hear, he said plainly, if people believe in the law, then I present Christ under the law, if people don't want the law I tell them that Christ was not under the law. This was nothing more than his story telling to suit his audience. He certainly had no details that one would expect.

I'd have to see evidence of that.

Ben C Smith

What from my statement makes you think that I think otherwise? Did you understand my point?

Nothing in what I said had anything to do with Jesus being born or not being born under the law. I was noting that Paul said Jesus was born of a woman; that is, Jesus was human (despite also being the son of God; same verse).

Given the pastoral epistles, my statement was too broad, but all the historical statements about Jesus that we find in Paul are either in the commonly accepted genuine epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) or in the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus). I regard Ephesians and Colossians as spurious, and they have virtually nothing in the way of historical information about Jesus.

So Paul wrote some things about Jesus in the flesh, while an imitator wrote in his name, but included nothing about Jesus in the flesh.

That is all I meant.

(In a very different tradition than Colossians and Ephesians, another imitator wrote the pastorals, which include information about Jesus in the flesh, too.)

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

After the historization process has gone so far, it becomes difficult to distinguish the results as originating with a myth or a man. This is not the case with the Pauline epistles.

We find a divine redeemer (Phil. 2:6) with heavenly attributes who operates almost exclusively in a spiritual sphere. The alleged Paul's knowledge comes from visions, personal apocalypses (2 Cor. 12:2ff) heavenly voices (2 Cor. 12:9) and communications (1 Cor. 11:23). The crucifixion (Gal. 2:20), resurrection (Col. 3;1), and ascension (Eph. 2:6) are spiritual events in which initiates have mystically participated.

Only in latter writings and catholic interpolations do allusions to historicity creep in. This is evidence that Pauline Christianity started as a myth rather than any human person. A historical person is not a Spirit. A historical person cannot be “in you.” Romans 8:9-10.

These Pauline epistles, with the proto-orthodox interpolations removed*, teach of the celestial Christ, not a man and that it very ignores “Son of man”, of a Jesus who would have been born from a Mary or a Joseph or a Holy Spirit, of Pilate or high priests who would have condemned him to death.

Time and again, the Pauline writings state that the the mysteries from the beginning of the world are revealed in the present time of the writter by revelation! The mysteries were not revealed by the preaching of the alleged historical Jesus, and not by the testimony of eye witnesses.

Not one person can be named who is supposed to have had a conversation with Jesus during his alleged earthly career. Not one earthly deed can be named that occured before Jesus' passion. And yet you write, "In the Pauline corpus, the trajectory is from more historical to more mythical, not vice versa." No offense Ben, but that statement is a wee bit rash. :huh:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:11-12).

The mystery of the gospel is by "supernatural" means directly to the "apostles." "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;" Eph. 3:5.

The author(s) insists that the mysteries of the ages are being revealed in his own day, even as he spoke! "Lo! I tell you a mystery." (1 Cor. 15:51). "..the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest..." (Col. 1:26). It is into this hot bed of religious zeal that the new religion is taking shape. It is a movement impelled by visions and other spiritual experiences. It is a chaotic situation with "many Christs" being taught by competing apostles. They are literally madmen, creating the story from mythic beginnings, enhanced by their own ecstatic experiences. “Paul” mentions factions of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and amazingly, distinct from them all, "of Christ"! (1 Cor. 1:12).

The greatest condemnation is reserved for those who views are the most similar. Curses are called forth upon those who preach "another gospel." Some opponents are claiming authority as angelic beings. (Gal. 1:6-9). The author claims authority because of ecstatic visions and revelation (Gal. 1:12). He does not distinguish his vision of the Risen Christ from any of the other witnesses of the alleged resurrection. None of the competitors claim authority on the basis of having known an Historical Jesus. It is all of visions and “Paul” consider's his visions to be of equal authority to any of them (2 Cor. 11:5).

What are considered signs of authority of apostleship? Having known the begged for historical Jesus? Oh, hell no. There is none of that. The apostle impresses the converts at Corinth with his authority by exhibiting more glossiana (WTF?) than any of them. "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you." 1 Cor. 14:18. To the Galatians, it is claims to have been crucified (2:20) and exhibiting the stigmata.

Jesus is an expected celestial being in the Pauline epistles, one who is able to subdue the entire universe. Philippians 3:20-21.

Jake Jones IV

*Even before the catholic redactions are removed, the alleged evidence of Jesus' historicty are as weak as anyone could imagine. "Born of a woman" and "flesh" are your best case??? Now, that is embarrasing.

Ben C Smith

They are not the best case. They are two items on a longish list.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Why is a ghost with fleshy bits historical?