Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 06-20-2010, 08:20 AM

Hi ApostateAbe,

Regarding:

Quote:

In fact, the difference between me and Paul's model of Jesus may explain why Paul used the phrase, "...born of a woman..." He said that in Galatians 4:4, immediately after saying that Jesus was the son of God. Normal offspring of the gods, in Paul's social environment, would not be born of women.

Actually, most of the mystery religions revolved around the offspring of Gods and Women: Heracles, Dionysus, Asclepius, Romulus, Remus, Perseus, Phaeton. It is unlikely that Paul went a single day without seeing at least one statue of a God born of God and woman.

In this particular case, the Christ he is talking about is "The Word of God". The Word of God was born from God and the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit/Holy Wisdom/Holy Sophia

Elaine Pagels explains how the gnostics viewed the Holy Ghost as a woman. (From http://southerncrossreview.org/46/gnostic-gospels.htm)

Quote:

God the Father/God the Mother

In sharp contrast to other religious traditions, whether in Egypt, Greece, Rome, Africa, India or the Americas, the absence of feminine symbolism marks Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Catholics revere Mary as the Mother of God, but she is not "God the Mother" on an equal footing with God the father. Growing up in Jewish or Christian tradition it is impossible to escape the impression that God is masculine. Of the three persons in the Christian trinity, two -- the Father and the Son -- are masculine, while the third, the Holy Spirit, reflects the sexlessness of the Greek neuter term for Spirit: pneuma.

The Gnostics, however, insisted that the divine be understood as a dynamic, harmonious relation of opposites -- male and female -- akin to the Eastern concept of yin and yang. Another Gnostic characterization of the Mother refers to her as the Holy Spirit. The Apocryphon of John relates how John, just after the crucifixion, had a vision of the trinity in three forms. To John's question the vision answers:

"...John, John, why do you doubt, and why are you afraid? ...I am the one who is with you always. I am the Father; I am the Mother; I am the Son."

The Greek word pneuma virtually requires that the third person be asexual. (Interestingly, the Spanish espíritu and the German Geist are both masculine.) But the author of the Secret Book has the Hebrew word for spirit in mind -- ruah, a feminine noun. He goes on to describe the divine Mother:

...(she is)...the image of the invisible, virginal, perfect spirit...She became the mother of everything, for she existed before them all, the mother-father [matropater]..."

In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus speaks of his divine Father -- the Father of Truth -- and his divine Mother -- the Holy Spirit.

Before the Word was made flesh, the Word (AKA Christ) was born of a woman - the Holy Spirit.

Later, the character Jesus gets blended with the God/Son "The Word" and Mary gets blended with the Holy Spirit/Mother of God.

Freud describes such blending in his "Interpretation of Dreams" (chapter 1B, from http://www.psychwww.com/books/interp/chap01a.htm)

Quote:

Here I might relate one of my own dreams, in which the recalled impression takes the form of an association. In my dream I saw a man whom I recognized, while dreaming, as the doctor of my native town. His face was not distinct, but his features were blended with those of one of my schoolmasters, whom I still meet from time to time. What association there was between the two persons I could not discover on waking, but upon questioning my mother concerning the doctor I learned that he was a one- eyed man. The schoolmaster, whose image in my dream obscured that of the physician, had also only one eye.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The silence isn't about the human nature of Jesus. Someone's human nature could simply be asserted without any sort of evidence, as the later heresiologists do. If you notice, most of your examples are instances of creeds or dogmas. If you were writing a letter to someone and were talking about a third party that both you and your receiver knew, would you use a phrase "...and yeah, Joe Smith was born of a woman."? Of course not; that's pretty axiomatic. Do you think if I wrote an email to someone talking about you and wrote "...and ApostateAbe's human nature is of the seed of King Arthur" they would think I actually knew you? It reads more like a formulaic dogma or creed, not an anecdote about a recently deceased human being.

Those are some good points. I love it when I am compared to Jesus.

In fact, the difference between me and Paul's model of Jesus may explain why Paul used the phrase, "...born of a woman..." He said that in Galatians 4:4, immediately after saying that Jesus was the son of God. Normal offspring of the gods, in Paul's social environment, would not be born of women. They would be born from gods! So, yeah, it is a doctrinal statement, and you seem to think it follows that it was likely a sectarian interpolation or something. But, what Paul wrote simply follows from our normal expectations--Paul was describing the divine narrative and purpose of Jesus' life. Yeah, Paul could have just said, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son ... born under the Law," leaving out, "born of a woman," and someone may be led to think that Jesus was born from the gods, or at least they would be a little confused.

aa5874 · 06-20-2010, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...Taking Steve Mason' position - that Paul' message was apocalyptic - then, if Acts has been written later than Paul's epistles - its purpose is, as Pervo indicates, to give Paul's mission to the Gentiles a legitimacy, an acceptance. In other words, once the need for Paul' apocalyptic role is over (post 70 ce) then Paul's earlier message become toned down and Paul now needs some acceptance for his new role to the Gentiles. Acts is sidelining Paul's earlier role - an apocalyptic role (to the Jews) - and re-inventing, re-imaging, Paul to fit the new post 70 ce situation - a situation were both Jew and Gentile can now embrace Paul's announcement, his good news, in less apocalyptic, less exclusive language. Everyone now, post 70 ce is in the same boat....

But, it is really useless in assuming the supposed Pauline revelations from Jesus were apocalyptic when the EVIDENCE clearly shows that they were NOT.

We know that it was the supposed revelations from Jesus to John that were APOCALYPTIC.

See Revelation for the Apocalypse.

Re 6:12 -

Quote:

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood..

This is the Synoptic Jesus on the Apocalypse.

Mr 13:24 -

Quote:

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light..

This is Joel on the Apocalypse.

Joe 2:31 -

Quote:

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

The Synoptics, Revelation and Joel are all Apocalyptic and was expected to have occur SHORTLY after the Fall of the Temple. The known world should have ENDED making the Pauline revelations IRRELEVANT.

The Pauline writers wrote NOT one thing about the Apocalypse, not one thing about the prediction of Joel.

The Pauline revelations from Jesus are INCOMPATIBLE with the Jesus of REVELATION.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...Pre-Paul - according to Acts, it is Peter who represents the Gentile mission - the Gentile early origins, roots of what was to become, with the 'merger' with Paul post 70 ce, into early christianity. Paul's Gentile involvement would proceed once his apocalyptic, ''The Announcement", had served its purpose - a purpose more fitting to a Jewish context than that of a Gentile context.

So, perhaps Paul is silent on much more than details re a historical Jesus figure - he is also silent on his own earlier non-Gentile role....

But, the Pauline writings and the author of Acts did give some details of the supposed EARLY Paul. He was PERSECUTING Jesus believers in and outside of Jerusalem.

Ac 8:3 -

Quote:

As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Ga 1:13 -

Quote:

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it..

The Pauline writings show that they were after the failed prophecy of the Synoptics, Revelation and Joel and that they are non-historical with respect to actual whereabouts of the Pauline writers.

ApostateAbe · 06-20-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

Regarding:

Quote:

In fact, the difference between me and Paul's model of Jesus may explain why Paul used the phrase, "...born of a woman..." He said that in Galatians 4:4, immediately after saying that Jesus was the son of God. Normal offspring of the gods, in Paul's social environment, would not be born of women.

Actually, most of the mystery religions revolved around the offspring of Gods and Women: Heracles, Dionysus, Asclepius, Romulus, Remus, Perseus, Phaeton. It is unlikely that Paul went a single day without seeing at least one statue of a God born of God and woman.

In this particular case, the Christ he is talking about is "The Word of God". The Word of God was born from God and the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit/Holy Wisdom/Holy Sophia

Elaine Pagels explains how the gnostics viewed the Holy Ghost as a woman. (From http://southerncrossreview.org/46/gnostic-gospels.htm)

Before the Word was made flesh, the Word (AKA Christ) was born of a woman - the Holy Spirit.

Later, the character Jesus gets blended with the God/Son "The Word" and Mary gets blended with the Holy Spirit/Mother of God.

Freud describes such blending in his "Interpretation of Dreams" (chapter 1B, from http://www.psychwww.com/books/interp/chap01a.htm)

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Those are some good points. I love it when I am compared to Jesus.

In fact, the difference between me and Paul's model of Jesus may explain why Paul used the phrase, "...born of a woman..." He said that in Galatians 4:4, immediately after saying that Jesus was the son of God. Normal offspring of the gods, in Paul's social environment, would not be born of women. They would be born from gods! So, yeah, it is a doctrinal statement, and you seem to think it follows that it was likely a sectarian interpolation or something. But, what Paul wrote simply follows from our normal expectations--Paul was describing the divine narrative and purpose of Jesus' life. Yeah, Paul could have just said, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son ... born under the Law," leaving out, "born of a woman," and someone may be led to think that Jesus was born from the gods, or at least they would be a little confused.

You have a good point that there were many figure who had a god for a father and a woman for a mother. I would still claim it is at least somewhat of a peculiarity, and I don't think a normal reader unfamiliar with the Christian faith would assume that Jesus was born from a woman if Paul had said that he was the son of God and just left it there. The demigods you listed are still a minority of the entire Greek pantheon, and gods are typically born from goddesses. Mars was born from Juno, for example.

So, I take it that you think, "born of a woman," means born from the Holy Spirit (a woman)? Maybe I still don't quite understand your theology.

maryhelena · 06-20-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...Taking Steve Mason' position - that Paul' message was apocalyptic - then, if Acts has been written later than Paul's epistles - its purpose is, as Pervo indicates, to give Paul's mission to the Gentiles a legitimacy, an acceptance. In other words, once the need for Paul' apocalyptic role is over (post 70 ce) then Paul's earlier message become toned down and Paul now needs some acceptance for his new role to the Gentiles. Acts is sidelining Paul's earlier role - an apocalyptic role (to the Jews) - and re-inventing, re-imaging, Paul to fit the new post 70 ce situation - a situation were both Jew and Gentile can now embrace Paul's announcement, his good news, in less apocalyptic, less exclusive language. Everyone now, post 70 ce is in the same boat....

But, it is really useless in assuming the supposed Pauline revelations from Jesus were apocalyptic when the EVIDENCE clearly shows that they were NOT.

We know that it was the supposed revelations from Jesus to John that were APOCALYPTIC.

See Revelation for the Apocalypse.

Re 6:12 -

This is the Synoptic Jesus on the Apocalypse.

Mr 13:24 -

This is Joel on the Apocalypse.

Joe 2:31 -

The Synoptics, Revelation and Joel are all Apocalyptic and was expected to have occur SHORTLY after the Fall of the Temple. The known world should have ENDED making the Pauline revelations IRRELEVANT.

The Pauline writers wrote NOT one thing about the Apocalypse, not one thing about the prediction of Joel.

The Pauline revelations from Jesus are INCOMPATIBLE with the Jesus of REVELATION.

But, the Pauline writings and the author of Acts did give some details of the supposed EARLY Paul. He was PERSECUTING Jesus believers in and outside of Jerusalem.

Ac 8:3 -

Ga 1:13 -

Quote:

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it..

The Pauline writings show that they were after the failed prophecy of the Synoptics, Revelation and Joel and that they are non-historical with respect to actual whereabouts of the Pauline writers.

What the assumed historical Jesus is supposed to have said is not at issue here. Mason has made a study of Paul's use of the term 'good news' - 'euangelion' - and found that this term is particular to Paul. He then ties in Paul's use of this term to Paul' apocalyptic terminology - and concludes that Paul's 'good news' was not ordinary good news but of an apocalyptic nature.

Quote:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/mason3.shtml
Methods and Categories: Judaism and Gospel
Steve Mason

Within this context of substantive diversity, I propose, to euangelion appears to be a term characteristic of Paul’s mission. It was something that he connected only with his own work, often in strikingly proprietary terms. He was eager to associate his own converts and followers with to euangelion as a shared treasure, but he became notably reticent to associate Christ-followers of other persuasions with it—not because they were unworthy, necessarily, but simply because they were different and not part of his mission, which was called to euangelion. This would explain why only Mark, of the second-generation narratives, featured this term in strategic places (at the beginning, middle, and end): Mark is a biography of Jesus with strong Pauline emphases. Matthew, Luke, and John (as Q and Thomas), by contrast, took markedly different perspectives on Jesus and his significance, and so they dropped what they recognized as Pauline language almost entirely. From Acts and Ignatius’ letters onward, however, a movement was underway to fuse the sometimes contentious traditions that had flourished in the first two generations. To euangelion was from then on stripped of its distinctively Pauline connotations and became the common property of all Christians.

(my bolding)

aa5874 · 06-20-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...What the assumed historical Jesus is supposed to have said is not at issue here. Mason has made a study of Paul's use of the term 'good news' - 'euangelion' - and found that this term is particular to Paul. He then ties in Paul's use of this term to Paul' apocalyptic terminology - and concludes that Paul's 'good news' was not ordinary good news but of an apocalyptic nature.

But, what you say does not make much sense.

The Gospel is totally about Jesus, the things he supposedly did and said to the Pauline writer and others.

It is just plain absurd to suggest Paul's gospel has nothing to do with the assumed words of Jesus.

And by definition the word "gospel" is not even directly associated to an apocalypse.

Quote:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/mason3.shtml
Methods and Categories: Judaism and Gospel
Steve Mason

Within this context of substantive diversity, I propose, to euangelion appears to be a term characteristic of Paul’s mission. It was something that he connected only with his own work, often in strikingly proprietary terms. He was eager to associate his own converts and followers with to euangelion as a shared treasure, but he became notably reticent to associate Christ-followers of other persuasions with it—not because they were unworthy, necessarily, but simply because they were different and not part of his mission, which was called to euangelion. This would explain why only Mark, of the second-generation narratives, featured this term in strategic places (at the beginning, middle, and end): Mark is a biography of Jesus with strong Pauline emphases. Matthew, Luke, and John (as Q and Thomas), by contrast, took markedly different perspectives on Jesus and his significance, and so they dropped what they recognized as Pauline language almost entirely. From Acts and Ignatius’ letters onward, however, a movement was underway to fuse the sometimes contentious traditions that had flourished in the first two generations. To euangelion was from then on stripped of its distinctively Pauline connotations and became the common property of all Christians.

It is quite contradictory for one to claim that gMark shows Pauline influence and then immediately claim gMatthew shows none, when gMatthew is believed to have used almost ALL of gMark.

There is no demonstratable Pauline influence in gMark.

1. A Pauline writer claimed Jesus was born of a woman.

GMark has no birth narrative.

2. A Pauline writer claimed over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

The author of the early short ending of gMark claimed those who visited the tomb found it EMPTY and FLED trembling telling no-one.

3. The Pauline writings are about the revelations from a RESURRECTED DEAD.

The details of the teachings of Jesus, the miracles, the walking on water, the transfiguration, betrayal, trial, crucifixion and resurrection in gMark is NOT AT ALL from the Pauline writings.

PhilosopherJay · 06-20-2010, 12:39 PM

Hi Apostate Abe,

I think the terms "Jesus" and "Christ" went through an evolution in their meanings.

Take the term "Superman".
When used in the 1934 James Cagney movie "Footlight Parade," the phrase, "I'm not a superman" referred to the general concept of the Superman that Frederick Nietzche and George Bernard Shaw had made famous. It basically meant someone who was able to easy do things that ordinary people found challenging.
In the 2000 Laslo Bane song "Superman", (which was the theme song for the television show "Scrubs" for nine years) the line "I'm no Superman" refers to the older meaning, but may be also referring to the comic book character "Superman" who appeared first in Action comic books in 1938 and was an alien from the planet Krypton.

Somebody who listens to the Laslo Bane song and watches the James Cagney movie might assume that both refer to the same character.

Analogously, I believe that the concept of the Holy Trinity: God, the Father, The Holy Spirit, the Mother, and "The Word" or "The Anointed One" (Christ), the Son existed before the gospel stories.

The story of Mary and her child Jesus probably is a transfiguration of the story of Elizabeth and her child John. When the tales of the magician Jesus became popular, people combined these stories with the gnostic concepts like the Holy Trinity, but Paul's writing probably pre-date the gospel stories, so their reference is to the woman in the gnostic Holy Trinity. It does not refer to the later concept of a Human baby, born of an unwed virgin mother, named Mary. It is only because we do not know the exact dates of the publication of the material that we make this mistake. Our best clue, perhaps, is that Paul never mentions "Mary." This suggests that the story of the Earthly Jesus and his Earthly Mother had not been created yet

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

Regarding:

Actually, most of the mystery religions revolved around the offspring of Gods and Women: Heracles, Dionysus, Asclepius, Romulus, Remus, Perseus, Phaeton. It is unlikely that Paul went a single day without seeing at least one statue of a God born of God and woman.

In this particular case, the Christ he is talking about is "The Word of God". The Word of God was born from God and the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit/Holy Wisdom/Holy Sophia

Elaine Pagels explains how the gnostics viewed the Holy Ghost as a woman. (From http://southerncrossreview.org/46/gnostic-gospels.htm)

Before the Word was made flesh, the Word (AKA Christ) was born of a woman - the Holy Spirit.

Later, the character Jesus gets blended with the God/Son "The Word" and Mary gets blended with the Holy Spirit/Mother of God.

Freud describes such blending in his "Interpretation of Dreams" (chapter 1B, from http://www.psychwww.com/books/interp/chap01a.htm)

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

You have a good point that there were many figure who had a god for a father and a woman for a mother. I would still claim it is at least somewhat of a peculiarity, and I don't think a normal reader unfamiliar with the Christian faith would assume that Jesus was born from a woman if Paul had said that he was the son of God and just left it there. The demigods you listed are still a minority of the entire Greek pantheon, and gods are typically born from goddesses. Mars was born from Juno, for example.

So, I take it that you think, "born of a woman," means born from the Holy Spirit (a woman)? Maybe I still don't quite understand your theology.

ApostateAbe · 06-20-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Apostate Abe,

I think the terms "Jesus" and "Christ" went through an evolution in their meanings.

Take the term "Superman".
When used in the 1934 James Cagney movie "Footlight Parade," the phrase, "I'm not a superman" referred to the general concept of the Superman that Frederick Nietzche and George Bernard Shaw had made famous. It basically meant someone who was able to easy do things that ordinary people found challenging.
In the 2000 Laslo Bane song "Superman", the line "I'm no Superman" refers to the older meaning, but may be also referring to the comic strip character "Superman" who appeared first in Action comic books in 1938 and was am alien from the planet Krypton.

Somebody who listens to the Laslo Bane song and watches the James Cagney movie might assume that both refer to the same character.

Analogously, I believe that the concept of the Holy Trinity: God, the Father, The Holy Spirit, the Mother, and "The Word" or "The Anointed One" (Christ), the Son existed before the gospel stories.

The story of Mary and her child Jesus probably is a transfiguration of the story of Elizabeth and her child John. When the tales of the magician Jesus became popular, people combined these stories with the gnostic concepts like the Holy Trinity, but Paul's writing probably pre-date the gospel stories, so their reference is to the gnostic Holy Trinity and does not refer to the later concept of a Human baby, born of an unwed virgin mother, named Mary.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

I think I see what you are saying, and I think I will turn your analogy to my own advantage. Here is another annoying pop chorus that mentions "superman."

If I go crazy then will you still
Call me Superman
If I’m alive and well, will you be
There a-holding my hand
I’ll keep you by my side
With my superhuman might
Kryptonite

Based on these lines, we know that "Superman" of this song really is referring to comic book Superman, not Nietzsche's ubermensch. We know because kryptonite is a concept found only in the Superman comics.

You might see where I am going with this, so I'll skip that part. A skeptic might say, "Maybe the song is referring to Nietzsche's ubermensch, but 'Kryptonite' was thrown in to satisfy the modern plebeians who like the Superman comic book character. See how out of place 'Kryptonite' seems to be?" And, yeah, I have no really good rebuttal.

popgoestheweasel · 06-20-2010, 02:10 PM

But doesn't the term 'Christ' just mean 'someone or something anointed'? And doesn't 'Jesus' just mean 'Joshua' in Greek?

aa5874 · 06-20-2010, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The story of Mary and her child Jesus probably is a transfiguration of the story of Elizabeth and her child John. When the tales of the magician Jesus became popular, people combined these stories with the gnostic concepts like the Holy Trinity, but Paul's writing probably pre-date the gospel stories, so their reference is to the woman in the gnostic Holy Trinity. It does not refer to the later concept of a Human baby, born of an unwed virgin mother, named Mary. It is only because we do not know the exact dates of the publication of the material that we make this mistake. Our best clue, perhaps, is that Paul never mentions "Mary."

You have not provided any historical source to demonstrate any probability at all.

When did tales of a magician called Jesus surface?

Where did tales of a magician called Jesus surface?

Once the Pauline writings are questionable it is quite a folly to use the Pauline writings in isolation to date the very Pauline writings. Other sources MUST be used.

The Pauline writings are about the revelations from a resurrected DEAD.

In effect, the Pauline writers were WITNESSES to the AFTER LIFE of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

....This suggests that the story of the Earthly Jesus and his Earthly Mother had not been created yet..

How could that be when the very Church propagated the tradition that the Pauline writers was aware of gLuke?

The Pauline writings were not written in a vacuum.

The Church presented a tradition where the author of gLuke was a close companion of Paul and traveled and preached with Paul over the Roman Empire.

The Church presented a tradition that gMatthew was written since the time of Philo or long before the reign of Nero under whom Paul died.

The Church presented a tradition that Saul/Paul was the author of the Pauline Epistles and that Saul/Paul met the apostles of Jesus.

The Church presented a tradition that the Pauline writers were FULLY aware of the Jesus story.

Now, once the Jesus story was ACTUALLY written after the Fall of the Temple then it is most probable that the Pauline writers were after the Fall of the Temple.

Now, the phrase "born of a woman" in the Pauline writings may be a clue that the letter was anti-Marcionite, that is, it may have been written sometime after the middle of the 2nd century or after Marcion claimed his Christ was NOT born at all and had NO human flesh.

show_no_mercy · 06-21-2010, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Those are some good points. I love it when I am compared to Jesus.

In fact, the difference between me and Paul's model of Jesus may explain why Paul used the phrase, "...born of a woman..." He said that in Galatians 4:4, immediately after saying that Jesus was the son of God. Normal offspring of the gods, in Paul's social environment, would not be born of women. They would be born from gods!

Well, Jesus (lol), this isn't quite correct.

A lot of gods weren't born from women, but many Greek heroes -- demi-gods -- were born from women. Think of Romulus, Achilles, Perseus, Hercules, etc. All of these heroes were all born from women. Gal 4:4 reads more like a theological axiom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

So, yeah, it is a doctrinal statement, and you seem to think it follows that it was likely a sectarian interpolation or something.

Whether it was a sectarian interpolation or not, the statement functions the same way in either case. Either Paul himself was reiterating a doctrinal statement about Jesus, some later editor inserted it into Paul for the same exact reason. A normal human being that was slowly deified wouldn't need such a statement (especially if he had brothers).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

In addition, please note that we all agree that Paul's Jesus really is different from the Jesus seen in the gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The division is in how different. I believe that Paul spun Jesus very much into primarily a spiritual being, and that serves to explain a heckuva lot, without conflicting with the passages that seem to indicate that Paul still thought of Jesus as part human. The common mythicist model is that Paul's Jesus was only a spiritual being, which explains the spiritual stuff, but it conflicts with all of the human stuff. Therefore, why would you choose the common mythicist model as more probable?

I'm not exactly sure what the "common mythicist model" is. As far as I know, Jesus could have still been human, but the entirety of the NT could still be about a mythical Jesus - one that shares absolutely nothing with any sort of "historical" Jesus other than the name. How many Jews had the name "Jesus" in the first century? How many of these Jews were crucified? Probably dozens. As Trypho said in Justin's dialog, the entire thing could be based on rumors.

My problem really is with the ad hoc nature of HJ models and all of the unaddressed biases of NT historians. There seems to be way too much imagination going into the various depictions of any sort of historical Jesus reconstructed by scholars, and not enough actual data. Why not just make Jesus BarAbba the historical Jesus and be done with it? It makes more sense of the crucifixion at least - that the Jesus of Christianity was crucified for emulating his Biblical namesake, and wasn't the Paul-like peacenik Jesus made out in the gospel narratives. And it more than satisfies the NT historian's "criterion of embarrassment" moreso than any other "embarrassing" thing in the NT.

But... even that "model" is still too ad hoc for my tastes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-20-2010, 02:10 PM	#68
popgoestheweasel Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: northeast Posts: 18	But doesn't the term 'Christ' just mean 'someone or something anointed'? And doesn't 'Jesus' just mean 'Joshua' in Greek?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.