jgreen44

You're right. The title I chose for this thread is poorly worded. It should have been entitled: "Double Charisma - Suggestive of an Historical Jesus Figure".

maryhelena

Or better still - how about:
"Double Charisma - Suggestive of a pre-Paul Historical Figure" - that way the field is wide open - and we can all get out the history books...

spamandham

IMHO, mythicism is not incompatible with a historical core as it does not imply pure myth, but incorporates other categories such as legend and mysticism as well.

If there was some kind of historical core to Jesus, it is irretrievably lost. Paul is generally deemed primary and has next to nothing to say about Jesus that is historically useful, and the gospels are so absurd they might as well be pure fiction (and may very well be).

I'm currently reading "The Christian Delusion : Why Faith Fails (or via: amazon.co.uk)" and just finished the chapter by R.M.Price. In it, he claims that the gospels are indistinguishable from a genre popular at the time (can't recall the name) where students of a particular philosophical cult would write stories of pure fiction featuring their cult leader, the purpose being to demonstrate how in tune the student was with the nature and ways of the leader. If this is the origin of the gospels, then they are useless toward trying to discern details of the life of Jesus, including when he lived or whether he lived.

Maybe. In the case of Paul though, we already know that the Jerusalem church preceded his theology...we just don't know exactly how they are related.

spamandham

...or someone is assuming too much.

maryhelena

Yes, that's the ninety nine dollar question - what went on before Paul and what is his relationship to the pre-paul history of christianity. To my mind, to think it all mythical, that it is all based upon Paul's vision, his spiritual ideas, is to rule out a very Jewish element - the interpretation, the evaluation, of history through a prophetic lens. Salvation history requires that there be some history that was found to be relevant to that 'salvation'. Thus a historical core is foundational, fundamental, to the gospel salvation storyline. Not, of course, meaning that Jesus is that historical core - on the contrary, the Jesus storyline has simply been given a historical veneer. It is itself the 'salvation' interpretation of history - it is not the historical reality.

spamandham

But what exactly? Is a historical cult figure notionally called "Jesus" really the best explanation for the existence of the Jerusalem church - an entity we know virtually nothing about other the names of a few of it's high ranking officers at the time of Paul, what appears to be general disconcern with Jewish ritual law, and that Paul wishes to impress them for unknown reasons?

We consider Paul primary because his texts are the oldest surviving Christian texts, but within those texts, Paul tells us that he is actually a latecomer. To try figure out details of a hypothetical cult figure from the writings of one such as Paul is nothing more than guessing.

maryhelena

A primary historical figure - or half a dozen historical figures - that were relevant to the pre-Paul christian origin story? Mythicists seem to have no trouble ascribing Paul to be one such prominent individual in the later history - that somehow Paul got the various 'churches' prior to his time to all dance to his tune...Nothing wrong with that scenario of course. But when it comes to an earlier historical individual (granted for the sake of argument that Paul, or whoever is using that name, was historical) mythicists seem to balk at the very notion. Too much time perhaps knocking down the Jesus historicists arguments - that a real historical individual, pre-Paul, is just somehow too close to be comfortable... That the gospel Jesus figure is not historical does not mean that a historical individual, pre-Paul, was not relevant. And, in relationship to the OP, such a 'double charisma' idea seems to have more going for it than against it - re early or pre-Paul christian origins.

Sure, if it was left to the writings of Paul nothing much could be discerned re early, pre-Paul, christian origins. Paul, for his own reasons, chose to concentrate on spiritual matters - and on moving things forward. But we don't just have Paul - we have the gospels as well - and their theological/spiritual storyline of a pre-Paul situation. It is immaterial if the Jesus storyline was written after Paul's writings (that's all depended upon dating of documents anyway) - the gospel storyline is there and it is dated to specific historical realities, a specific historical timeline that pre-dates Paul.

Just because Jesus is not historical does not mean that the gospel timeline was not important, not relevant, to pre-christian history. OK - now we are back to whether its going to be a primary historical individual or half a dozen or so....Doherty's version of mythicism seems to go for the Tom, Dick and Harry approach - no specific historical individual prior to Paul. Wells takes a different tack:


Can we trust the New Testament?: thoughts on the reliability of Early Christian Testimony. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

By George Albert Wells

So, battle of the mythicists...

bacht

Hmm, the gospels do purport to describe events as far back as the early 1st C, but I think most commentators would have more confidence in the historical value of Paul's letters.

It is an interesting question: who came before Paul? He mentions visiting Arabia and Syria after his conversion and eventually Jerusalem (Galatians 1). As Spam says we only have tantalizing bits of clues about what was happening before, say, the mid-30s.

jgreen44

Though I never thought of George Bush as "excelling at PR", I just noticed that you did you use the plural, "presidents." Would it be safe, therefore, to assume that you were watching CNN up until January 20th, 2009? Or do we need to go back to the Clinton administration?

aa5874

But, is it not odd that it is the same books which tell you about Paul that also tells you what went on before Paul heard from Jesus who was RAISED from the DEAD.

The Pauline activities are from the NT Canon, just look in the same NT Canon and you will see what went on before Paul.

Even Paul in the writings that bear his name gave some details of what went on.


He did claim he persecuted the FAITH.

He preached the same FAITH that others preached before him.

Acts of the Apostles is internally CORROBORATED by the Pauline writings in many instances.

There is NO requirement for an historical core of Jesus of the NT for SALVATION all that is necessary is belief.

We have sources of antiquity which show that people called themselves Christian not based on any historical core ONLY belief in GOD.

SALVATION only requires belief not proof of an historical core.

This is in "Theophilus to Autolycus" XII JESUS was NOT ACCEPTED as the only SOURCE of SALVATION.

You must remember that Jesus was NOT the only entity offering SALVATION to mankind WITHOUT an historical core.


N