Juststeve

We ought not overstate the case by saying Paul knew nothing of an earthly Jesus. He might not have known much but he did know that:

Jesus was a Jew descended from David. Romans 1

Jesus had a brother named James who Paul met. Galatians 1

Jesus was betrayed and instituted the Last Supper. 1 Corinthians 11

Jesus case crucified. 1Corinthians 2

Jesus existed in Human form. Phillipians 2


Not much but strong indication that Paul thought Jesus had been around, on earth, in the recent past.

Steve

Toto

Juststeve: please stop using the phrase "Jesus denier." It is inaccurate.

You might want to review some of the past discussion in this forum before you start to recycle old arguments.

Thanks.

Juststeve

Toto:

Is there something offensive about the term "Jesus denier"? I meant it to apply to those who deny the existence of an historical Jesus. There are some of those about, aren't there?

Steve

yin_sage

I think we were discussing, not whether Paul thought Jesus was a real dude, but whether he knew anything at all about him as a person. The Jesus of the epistles is nondescript; he has no personality. Paul could be referring to absolutely anybody, but most people fill in the gaps with their knowledge of the gospel stories, which is not necessarily justified.

Toto

Yes, there is something offensive about it. It implies that there is clear evidence that Jesus existed, which some people deny.

Some people who think there is no evidence for a historical Jesus are agnostic on the question. Some prefer a spiritual Jesus. For some, he is their favorite fictional character.

You might use the phrase "historical Jesus skeptic" if you need to group all of these people together.

show_no_mercy

These are all statements of dogma (which some "heretical" Christians contested), not the recollections of someone that Paul actually knew. They are the types of statements that can apply equally to any mythological character.

Paul says that James is a brother of the lord, not Jesus' brother.

As a clarification, Paul also talks about sister wives in 1 Cor 9 in the same contexts as brothers of the lord but your translators translate that instance of "sister" with "believing". James being an actual brother of Jesus seems to be inconsistent with Paul's use of the word "adelphos". As 1 Cor 9 illustrates Paul consistently uses to mean fellow Christ as Lord believer.

Do you really think the historical Jesus knew that he was going to be betrayed and offered his supposedly Jewish followers a symbolic way to eat his flesh and blood after he had been killed so that they could always remember him? That's the type of ritual gods (like Mithra) enact for their followers, not the thing that your typical vagabond preacher does. If this actually happened, then we have supposed Jews worshiping a human being as a god... and Jesus (also supposedly Jewish) thinking of himself as a god.

It looks like 1 Cor 11 is more than likely an interpolation.

Juststeve

Toto:

I will comply with your edict by not using the forbidden phrase.

Wondering why a forum like this has forbidden phrases
Steve

Toto

There are a lot of phrases that are not used in polite discourse. There are rules of conduct here to prevent discussions from descending into flame wars or emotional food fights.

If you need more information, PM me.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

This is an excellent point. Why is Christ speaking through Paul. Jesus is supposed to be the Christ (Anointed one) giving God's message. Why is Paul not just quoting Jesus? The term "Christ" in the way it functions here creates a certain redundancy. Paul becomes the messenger of the messenger. We have to account for this.
We also have to account for the lack of reference to Jesus' teaching and life in this text.
My hypothesis is that all mentions of Jesus and Christ were later additions or replacements to the original texts. The original text presented a devout Jew talking about God, but saying nothing about Jesus Christ. Later Christians took the texts, edited them and sprinkled references to Christ here and there.

Working from this hypothesis, it is easy to see the changes that the later Christian editors made to the originally Jewish text. Here is the later Christian texts and the probable original text:

King James
Reconstruction:
Explanations of reconstructed changes:

3. Paul wants to prove his message is holy and he is a holy man. There is no need for him to say Christ, he just needs to invoke God. Saying that you are a messenger of a messenger of God, just creates redundancy.
4. Notice first that the subject in the second half of the sentence is "we". It is quite awkward to have "he" as the subject in the first half of the sentence and suddenly switch to "we". It is more likely that Paul followed good grammatical rules and did not switch subjects in midstream. Secondly notice that he says that the crucifixion was "through weekness." It is ridiculous for him to declare God or the son of God week. Thus both grammatically and logically, it makes more sense for the writer to say "we" who were crucified through our weakness. and it is we who live by the power of God."
5. Paul has just said that we live by the power of God. Again to suddenly switch to the need to have Christ in you is redundant. Having God in you is the measure of if you're in the faith.
14. The three terms "Lord" and "God" and "Holy Ghost" have antecedent qualities attached: the "Grace" of the Lord, the "Love" of "God" and the "Communion" of the "Holy Ghost". The term "Jesus Christ" is the term that doesn't have any quality attached. It is like saying I wish you the wealth of Midus, the strength of Hercules, Be Bop A Lula, and the wisdom of Solomon. It is clear that "Be Bop A Lula" does not belong. (Here's a video of Be Bop a Lula)

Later editing of Jewish text to Christianize it is the best explanation for the Paul letters not containing any significant information about the life or sayings of Jesus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Kapyong

So, are you a fairy-denier?
Yes or no?


Kapyong