aa5874

May I remind you that the Scholarly consensus, whether MJ or HJ, is that the Gospels and the SOURCES for the Gospels are NOT historically reliable.

Do you UNDERSTAND what that means?

It does NOT really matter who FIRST wrote the Jesus stories.

If the authors of the Gospels used the Pauline writings as their SOURCE then they would still be INACCURATE historically.

The SOURCES for the Gospels are UNRELIABLE historically.

Please, read what BART EHRMAN stated in a debate on the resurrection.

"Paul" was NOT an eyewitness of Jesus whether he wrote LAST or FIRST. And "Paul" claimed he RECEIVED his gospel in a MOST UNRELIABLE way-- From REVELATION by the resurrected.

Toto

Could you explain what you mean by this? Who is manipulating whom for what purpose???


Paul wasn't impressed with the human Jesus who died for his sins to save the world? Where are you coming from?

archibald

I wouldn't have thought that you would have sourced an answer from the Gospels. I meant to ask you why you thought Jesus was supposed to have been crucified.

archibald

Hi Avi. :]

Yes.

And, unless I am accidentally skipping over something, yes to the rest of your reply also.

But I am still not sure what makes you think his followers didn't think of him as the messiah? His depiction as being crucified 'like' a criminal doesn't mean that that's all THEY thought he was. It seems very plausible, to me, that the only reason they stayed as followers afterwards was precisely because they didn't think that. Obviously, he wasn't the sort of messiah that some were hoping for, hence the whole reinterpretation of what a messiah was, which was the basis for the whole religion. No?




I know you were replying to Don on this, but I made a passing comment also.

Yes, in principle, on this one criteria of itself (the 'odd silence') it could work both ways. My point, in commenting, and perhaps I was introducing a mythiscist issue when you hadn't, is that you personally, on this one issue, wouldn't, I am thinking, see the former (early Paul) silence as odd.

archibald

Yup.

This is one of my problems with reading only Doherty, or indeed any one hypothesis by any author. It's hard for me to tell while reading him, in the absence of wider review, whether his arguments from other types/genres of text are broadly accurate, or somehow selective. That is why I have enjoyed reading the two and fro between you and him on that particular front.

As you may or may not have noticed, I have provisionally decided, as a result of reading his latest response to you, that there does seem to be at least enough in the 'world of myth' of the era to agree that Paul 'could' have been setting his Jesus figure in an upper realm.

I caveat that with the observation that I haven't yet heard a response to that response, from you (and I hear you when you say you have been round the block with him enough times already), or better still, from academia, be it scholars or classical historians. But I am prepared to run with 'could' in the meantime, though I do still think there's not enough in Paul to explain why he doesn't actually seem, on the textual evidence, to be setting his action there, so for this reason the 'could' is just in principle and speculative, IMO.

Where can I find Burridge's stuff, by the way?

archibald

Yes, and on that, it's my broad observation that, while he doesn't do bio ( a curiosity, I think everyone agrees) he still (a) makes many references which 'seem' to be earthly, including a small number which appear to approach explicit, even Kapyong accepts this I think, and (b) makes no explicit references to non-earthly.

And one side seems to me to have to work harder than the other side to explain away both of these. :]

aa5874

Please, in gJohn and the Pauline writings the crucifixion of Jesus was a LOVE STORY.

Romans 5:8 -
Ga 2:20 - John 3:16 - The crucifixion was the GREATEST LOVE STORY in the NT.

Joh 15:13 - It must be noted that it was the LATER Gospel of John that claimed the Crucifixion was a Love story.

The crucifixion of Jesus in the Synoptics SIGNIFIED DESTRUCTION for the Jews, not a LOVE story at all.

The Pauline writings and gJohn are COMPATIBLE with the crucifixion LOVE story . More signs that the Pauline writings are LATE.

Doug Shaver

I seem to have forgotten where Doherty says he starts anything with that notion. Maybe you can refresh my memory?

Do you think it reasonable, on the historicist assumption, to suppose that the gospels were partly accurate? If so, is it not reasonable to think Paul would have been aware of whatever facts of Jesus' life were accurately recorded in the gospels?

maryhelena

Great insight there, aa5874 - the JC crucifixion as a Love Story....:notworthy:

archibald

(speaking out of turn again)

Yes. Many of them, at least. Maybe facts is too strong a word, but I think it's very plausible that he was aware of what others had reported.

I think everybody agrees that his omission seems odd. Don has asked the question, on previous occasions, as to whether it only seems odd 'to us' rather than actually being odd, and I believe he has cited examples of other writings which also don't do bio, and suggested looking at wider comparision. So, the move from 'seems odd' to 'seems mythical' is not that persuasive, to me, yet.

Many things seem odd. To me, it's odd he doesn't actually seem to clearly set his story in a non-earthly realm. To me it's odd that if he's doing myth, there is no 'myth bio' either. And avi thinks Paul is post-gospel, and accepts that Paul didn't do bio in that case.

There seems to be (at least) one more, which I don't think I've heard aired yet. It seems odd to me that Paul is supposed to have been citing scripture about a messiah who comes to earth if his didn't.

All of these 'oddities' can be explained. All one would have to do is pick a hypothetical scenario, and fit them in to suit. And yes, I accept that both 'sides', orthodox and non-orthodox, might be doing this.

On a side note, it does still seem to me that mythicist and some other non-orthodox explanations require more elaboration and indeed speculation. This is why I asked Toto to clarify why it is that he thinks Paul didn't persecute Jesus' followers beforehand. On the face of it (and I await Toto's clarification, which can be brief, or refer me to a new thread, or whatever) because my first reaction is to think that this view must require at least another two suggested interpolations, in Galatians.