aa5874

The historicity of Jesus MUST be externally corroborated.

There are people in the NT Canon who claim they SAW Jesus but only to learn that they SAW Jesus in a resurrected non-historical state.

Christians may SWEAR by God that they SAW fictitious people who they believe exist with an unbroken chain that so far may extend up to 2000 years.

spin

You see what happens when you reduce the language and lose categories, reducing your thinking options? I am certainly agnostic over Jesus' reality, but history has requirements that just don't get met in Paul. I couldn't be agnostic over the reality if the history was in. If you disagree perhaps you might like to debate the difference between Paul's belief in the reality of Jesus and the sufficiency of historical evidence for Jesus.


spin

Solo

Why should I be shamedfaced if I don't understand ? How can one repent one's lack of skills, nota bene where the deficiency is wholly misapprehended ?

Pretty frustrating, isn't it ? I mean, to live in a world apart. :huh:

Ah, you meant "than what" ? Well, that means you did not register my previous sentence :
That's what ! And you accuse me of not being able to read ? Good grief !

Ok, you seem to be crawling to it !

"Paul believed Jesus must have been real", I naturally read as "Paul knew Jesus was real" (remember 2 Cor 5:16 ?) which adjusted for inflation of dehistoricizing categories, means "Paul knew Jesus was a person who lived in history, ie., knew at minimum that he was born ("of a woman and under law", even if Gal 4:4 was interpolated) and died by crucifixion, as you say "a real vulnerable human being". This stands apart from considerations whether the act of brutality Jesus was subjected to had the theological meaning Paul believed it had, or whether this theological meaning coincides with the later teachings of the church.

Now, of course Paul did not talk (ever, I believe) about Jesus as the pre-crucified human, but about emanations of him Paul believed he was receiving after - a proof of Jesus' messiahship and his resurrection. These, I believe, relate to Paul's medical profile, not to some emotionally detached, scholarly speculation. But Paul provides indirect evidence of Jesus' historicity, in that he references a proselytizing opposition which evidently had to cope with Jesus' condemnation and execution by the authorities. I have not yet seen a satisfactory alternative reading of Gal 3:1 and 6:12.

Did Paul know Jesus was executed recently ? Yes, I think it is very probable, on the context generally, but specifically on the reading of Rom 8:23, 1 Cor 15:20 and 23. In 1 Cor 15:20 (GDon's favourite ) Paul calls the resurrected Christ the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. That the reference is to the recent dead of the congregation is apparent from the preceding verse's Christ being the communal hope of Paul's church. Rom 8:23 is even more explicit in the hope of those who possess the first fruits to be accepted as sons (like Jesus).

I would want to think that a competent historian would not be 'thrown' by Paul's mystical grasp and beliefs but would be able to separate useful historical information from Paul's letters. But this will not happen if people continue to obstruct in silly posturing, like in the denial that 2 Cor 5:16 implies Paul's knowledge of Jesus from ordinary human communication prior to receiving revelations of him from God directly.

Best,
Jiri

spin

It is hopeless trying to communicate with someone who is dialoging with himself.

:wave:


spin

aa5874

You really don't know what the Pauline writers believed when you don't even know who "Paul" was and what he actually wrote.

The Pauline writers made CLAIMS about Jesus that may be FALSE and may have been written to make people BELIEVE in his resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writers that they received information from one who was RAISED from the dead. Such a claim is very likely to be FALSE.

What you say is just MERE faith-based speculation. Any one can claim that a resurrected man spoke to them. The Pauline writers have NO way of PROVING or CONFIRMING that one who was RAISED from the dead did ACTUALLY talk to them.

The Pauline writers have NO evidence of an actual LIVING Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth.

The Pauline writers made CLAIMS that are very likely to be FALSE. There are NO external corroborative sources for the Pauline Messiah called Jesus BEFORE the Fall of the Temple and the Pauline writers have NO way of proving that a resurrected dead gave them any historical data of their actual life on earth.

The Pauline source for his Messiah is by FAR the least credible or least reliable source for PAST events. Relying on the resurrected dead for "history of the past" is just a BIG Joke.

But, it is NOT people, it is "Pauline writers who made the following claims.
Galatians 1
Galatians 1. It is CLEAR that it was the Pauline writers themselves that CLAIMED that they did NOT CONFER with flesh and blood.

You are one who is posturing in denial and making claims about the Pauline writers that are NOT even found in the very Epistles.

Solo

I do not think Paul's claims were false, in the sense that he knew the were false. At any rate, this does not address the issues raised.

Correct. Paul merely had faith that in believing what he did he was not deluded.

Again, that is not the issue. I am not arguing that Paul confirms factually that Jesus of the Nazarenes was the Messiah; the evidence of Paul's writing is merely in confirming the crucifixion of Jesus and that people proclaiming him as a prophetic figure would be persecuted if they had not conformed in observances.

Jiri

spamandham

In what way does Paul confirm the crucifixion? Paul tells us repeatedly that his gospel was derived from revelation and scripture and not given to him by any man, and he also tells us what is gospel is - that Jesus was crucified and resurrected as the first fruit. Combining astrotheology with Judaism makes for a much more plausible origin of the crucifixion idea than does a historical crucifixion of some Jewish nobody.

gurugeorge

This type of "knowing" is compatible with either him knowing the content of a story (about a real human being) or a story (legend), or him knowing the content of a story told to him by a "Jesus" entity in visionary experience. (Jesus says "this is what I did when I was on earth" - i.e. Paul got his gospel from no man).

I think it's unequivocal that he believed this "Jesus" had sojourned on earth at some point - it's not unequivocal (from what he says) that any of the people he talks about (the Jerusalem people) knew that entity personally, or that he knows of this sojourn as as anything more than part of a story (told to him either by others, or by his "Jesus" vision itself).

Solo

Look, gg, I have repeated my view here several times and no-one has had anything concrete to say in rebuttal. It's all rhetoric: so, one more time:

Paul says in (Gal 6:12) that the judaizers desire to have the converts circumcised only in order that they be not persecuted for the cross of Christ.

This phrasing makes it quite improbable that the crucifixion was a mythical event. Why ? Because Paul makes the crucifixion an objective (real/historical) event by imputing to his proselytic rivals knowledge of that event. If the cross was some mythical symbol and the placing of Christ on it happened in nether world, and the event was believed only to have happened by the adherents of Paul, then it would have made no sense to claim

that those who did not believe it would be persecuted for it !

You follow ? Now look at it from another point of view. Let us say that Paul was talking in a highly cultic lingo where the 'persecution for the cross of Christ' meant some internal sense of persecution, say along the lines of Gospel of Thomas' verse 69 ('Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the Father'). Then two questions arise: 1) why should the observances of halakha be a 'remedy' to this predicament, and 2) how come that Cephas and his companions themselves did not follow the observances to forestall this kind of persecution ? You see ? It seems there is no better way out of this verse (actually the matrix formed by a number of interrelated statements by Paul) than admitting the cross is a reference to a historical event.

Do you understand my argument ? If yes, and you disagree with my analysis, show me where it fails. I am not interested in other theories before you can do that.

Best,
Jiri

spamandham

Are you saying that Paul believes Jews were persecuting Christians because Christians believed some dude had been crucified on a cross? I think it's obvious that "persecuted for the cross" is a metaphor for Christian persecution (which is an anachronism anyway for the 1st century when Galatians is usually arbitrarily dated).