dog-on

Of course, I disagree that Paul wrote of a literal physical Jesus, but there is really no argument regarding Paul's references to Jesus being revealed in him by God. Whether or not he actually believed this, we'll never know and it was a bad word choice on my part to use the term "believed" without qualifying it.

ApostateAbe

Cool, Toto. "Jesus gullible" is fine by me. I can write a correction to that and copy and paste it each time. Editing out my "Jesus birther" phrases is OK, too, as long as you are fair and consistent with such mod action.

It seems unlikely to me that Luke, who sourced directly from Mark, was writing to a drastically different audience of Christians than Mark. It is possible, of course, but I think it should fit the evidence, not force-fit the evidence. If there was firm evidence that Paul's writing about the five hundred witnesses was an interpolation, for example (such as if we had an earlier manuscript, or the writing clearly does not fit the style of Paul), then that would be a good argument. Or maybe there would be an anti-heretical writing against those who believe in a fairytale Jesus. Otherwise, why not accept that the earliest Christians actually believed that their myths really were about objective truths, like in so many other cults?

dog-on

Damn Abe, I agree! I do believe that the earliest Christians actually believed that their myths were objective truths, just as they do to this day.

Toto

This is an argument from personal incredulity.

The evidence is that Mark has an adoptionist theology, and Luke believed that Jesus was divine from birth. That sounds like a different theology to me.


How often do I have to link to Robert M. Price's Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation ???

So what if some later Christians thought that their myths were history? Your claim is that at least part of the myths were history. You are not getting any closer to proving that.

ApostateAbe

Maybe read it again and pay more attention? It is an argument from less ad hoc, or Occam's razor.
Those points don't closely relate to the issues at hand. I think you might be losing track and getting a little mixed up with what the argument in this thread is about.
It is unnecessary to link to Robert M. Price's articles, because I don't read them without good reason. I read a book by Price that you suggested to me, once. It was a waste of time, because Price tends to make many more preposterous claims than arguments, and he does not argue in favor of particular explanations.

As you know, my favorite author is Bart Ehrman. Whenever I make an argument, that means I put the full argument on the table. I don't link to anything that Bart Ehrman wrote and then expect anyone who disagrees with me to argue with Bart Ehman instead of with me.
Right. I am not arguing in favor of my theory that there is history in the texts. In this thread, I am arguing against the theory that the earliest Christians explicitly believed in a fairytale.

Toto

I read it again, and it's still an argument from personal incredulity. You personally can't believe that Mark and Luke were writing to different audiences, although that is a staple of conventional scholarship.

The point that Mark and Luke have different theologies relates to your inability to see that they are writing to different audiences.

Well then, it's a good thing that Bart Ehrman has enough respect for Robert Price to get his book recommendations.

Price points out that the passage in question sticks out like a sore thumb and is incompatible with other things that Paul wrote.

So your argument is based on confusing Luke and Mark? Luke used Mark as a source but felt free to add and subtract where convenient. I think that this means that Luke did not respect Mark as a historical source. But Mark is not all that early, compared to Paul, if you accept the standard dates for these writings.

jgoodguy

'True'???

Lets say I am a salesperson trying to sell a product. I hear something catchy about a competitor's product and I repeat that catchy something about my product. Do I know or care if it is 'true'? Do I see if it is false? More that likely I will not care enough to check for falsity. I am not lying, but I am not fully truthful either. My objective is to sell.

Applying this to Paul's case. Paul is selling a product: his religious point of view in the hope of getting followers and churches from which he will profit. Most folks in the religion business are selling something to their benefit. They want money, recognition or something. Those folks that do not profit do not stay in it for long. I assume that the Church at Jerusalem had a reputation and Paul used that reputation and parts of that church's theology to further his ministry. So in that case, Paul is teaching something he does not know if it is true, but it furthers his purpose.

Why do folks assume that Paul was a dedicated, self sacrificing, zealot and not just a traveling preacher who figured that the religious business was better than tent making? I am not sure if that helps or hurts the mythic position.

Take a look at:

1 Cor 9 6Are we the only ones who have to support ourselves by working at another job? 7Do soldiers pay their own salaries? Don't people who raise grapes eat some of what they grow? Don't shepherds get milk from their own goats? 8-9I am not saying this on my own authority. The Law of Moses tells us not to muzzle an ox when it is grinding grain. But was God concerned only about an ox? 10No, he wasn't! He was talking about us. This was written in the Scriptures so that all who plow and all who grind the grain will look forward to sharing in the harvest. 11When we told the message to you, it was like planting spiritual seed. So we have the right to accept material things as our harvest from you. 12If others have the right to do this, we have an even greater right. But we haven't used this right of ours. We are willing to put up with anything to keep from causing trouble for the message about Christ.

1 Timothy 5:

17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”[b]

Juststeve

Toto:

Like Luke all historians use other historians as sources and add to and subtract from their work. The purpose is to improve upon what had been done before. When a modern historian adds to or subtracts from an earlier one it would be wrong to conclude that he didn't respect his source.

Do you agree generally but just not in the case of the Luke, or do you disagree altogether?

Steve

Toto

If Luke were really a historian he would have listed his sources and explained why there were different points of view.

Luke was a theologian, shaping a theological narrative.

hjalti

Blasphemy!