Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 02-25-2010, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

The N/T, and Paul's writings never mention Jesus the man. Nothing about his life, he's dis-likes, nothing at all about a historical Jesus, only the mystical if you like, Jesus.

Paul certainly thought of Jesus as spiritual, but there is actually a small handful of passages from authentic Pauline letters that indicate an Earthly human Jesus. I am compiling a list of such passages. You can explain those passages as interpolation or whatever, but interpolated passages typically have evidence.

"born of a woman" Galatians 4:4
"who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3
"I saw none of the other apostles--save James, the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8
"You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried" 1 Corinthians 15:4

Anyone is free to add to that list as they please.

While it's true that some of these imply an earthly human figure, they still fail to say anything of relevance about the man - his teachings, his ministry, whether or not he followed the law, what it was that made his particular crucifixion special, etc.

All but the James reference on your list are so vague that they don't even nail down when Jesus lived, and 1 Cor 15:4 suggests that knowledge of the crucifixion is derived from scripture. (I've seen it argued that the Greek is vague enough that it could mean "in accordance with", but I don't know if that's true).

Of course, you already know why I don't consider the James reference to refer to a blood relationship. But if you want to keep bringing it up, you really should consider the refernce to James in 1 Cor 15 as well:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Huh? He 'appeared' to his own blood brother?...and if that isn't weird enough, this goes against everything we know about cults Even if it were argued that this is referring only to a post resurrection appearance, cult dynamics demand that James should have had the first revelation if he were the blood brother of Jesus. Instead, James comes even after some legendary '500'. I can't believe you honestly think this is 'probable'.

ApostateAbe · 02-25-2010, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul certainly thought of Jesus as spiritual, but there is actually a small handful of passages from authentic Pauline letters that indicate an Earthly human Jesus. I am compiling a list of such passages. You can explain those passages as interpolation or whatever, but interpolated passages typically have evidence.

"born of a woman" Galatians 4:4
"who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3
"I saw none of the other apostles--save James, the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8
"You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried" 1 Corinthians 15:4

Anyone is free to add to that list as they please.

While it's true that some of these imply an earthly human figure, they still fail to say anything of relevance about the man - his teachings, his ministry, whether or not he followed the law, what it was that made his particular crucifixion special, etc.

All but the James reference on your list are so vague that they don't even nail down when Jesus lived, and 1 Cor 15:4 suggests that knowledge of the crucifixion is derived from scripture. (I've seen it argued that the Greek is vague enough that it could mean "in accordance with", but I don't know if that's true).

Of course, you already know why I don't consider the James reference to refer to a blood relationship. But if you want to keep bringing it up, you really should consider the refernce to James in 1 Cor 15 as well:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Huh? He 'appeared' to his own blood brother?...and if that isn't weird enough, this goes against everything we know about cults Even if it were argued that this is referring only to a post resurrection appearance, cult dynamics demand that James should have had the first revelation if he were the blood brother of Jesus. Instead, James comes even after some legendary '500'. I can't believe you honestly think this is 'probable'.

Thanks, spamandham. I haven't yet seen that point about that reference to James in 1 Cor 15, but I think I have a good answer for you.

Firstly, just to clarify, are you imagining that Paul is describing Jesus as appearing to James for the very first time, the same as he appeared to Paul? The post-resurrection reading seems to be the most obvious one.

Secondly, if your theory about cults that Jesus should have appeared to James first holds true, should we not see it in the gospels? For example, in the gospel of Luke, Jesus after his resurrection appears to two people, one of them unnamed, and the other one named Cleopas, who we know nothing else about.

Or, we can talk about something else. For example, tell me why you think, "...who as to his human nature was a descendant of David," is ambiguous enough to leave doubt about whether Paul thought Jesus to be human.

aa5874 · 02-26-2010, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

While it's true that some of these imply an earthly human figure, they still fail to say anything of relevance about the man - his teachings, his ministry, whether or not he followed the law, what it was that made his particular crucifixion special, etc.

All but the James reference on your list are so vague that they don't even nail down when Jesus lived, and 1 Cor 15:4 suggests that knowledge of the crucifixion is derived from scripture. (I've seen it argued that the Greek is vague enough that it could mean "in accordance with", but I don't know if that's true).

Of course, you already know why I don't consider the James reference to refer to a blood relationship. But if you want to keep bringing it up, you really should consider the refernce to James in 1 Cor 15 as well:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Huh? He 'appeared' to his own blood brother?...and if that isn't weird enough, this goes against everything we know about cults Even if it were argued that this is referring only to a post resurrection appearance, cult dynamics demand that James should have had the first revelation if he were the blood brother of Jesus. Instead, James comes even after some legendary '500'. I can't believe you honestly think this is 'probable'.

Thanks, spamandham. I haven't yet seen that point about that reference to James in 1 Cor 15, but I think I have a good answer for you.

Firstly, just to clarify, are you imagining that Paul is describing Jesus as appearing to James for the very first time, the same as he appeared to Paul? The post-resurrection reading seems to be the most obvious one.

Secondly, if your theory about cults that Jesus should have appeared to James first holds true, should we not see it in the gospels? For example, in the gospel of Luke, Jesus after his resurrection appears to two people, one of them unnamed, and the other one named Cleopas, who we know nothing else about.

Or, we can talk about something else. For example, tell me why you think, "...who as to his human nature was a descendant of David," is ambiguous enough to leave doubt about whether Paul thought Jesus to be human.

When are you going to start use all the information supplied by the Pauline writers about Jesus? There are many more passages about Jesus as a God in the Pauline writings and the Canon.

Jesus Christ originates from the Septuagint where he was born of a woman in Isaiah 7.14 and of the Holy Ghost in the Synoptics.

You must noticed that just like the Gospels, Jesus had no earthly father. He was the SON of God.

Romans 1.1-4

Quote:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead..

How many times does it have to be shown that Jesus of the Canon was born of a woman without a human father by the seed of God?

angelo · 02-26-2010, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

The N/T, and Paul's writings never mention Jesus the man. Nothing about his life, he's dis-likes, nothing at all about a historical Jesus, only the mystical if you like, Jesus.

Paul certainly thought of Jesus as spiritual, but there is actually a small handful of passages from authentic Pauline letters that indicate an Earthly human Jesus. I am compiling a list of such passages. You can explain those passages as interpolation or whatever, but interpolated passages typically have evidence.

"born of a woman" Galatians 4:4
"who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3
"I saw none of the other apostles--save James, the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8
"You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried" 1 Corinthians 15:4

Anyone is free to add to that list as they please.

There is not a single scrap of evidence in all those statements that prove he is speaking of a flesh and blood person.
That last statement is straight out of the O/T as are the others.

Either that, or Jesus was really prophesied by the Hebrew prophets and was the son of god,and the coming messiah.
It can't be both.

gurugeorge · 02-26-2010, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Firstly, just to clarify, are you imagining that Paul is describing Jesus as appearing to James for the very first time, the same as he appeared to Paul? The post-resurrection reading seems to be the most obvious one.

Only if you're arguing in a circle.

ApostateAbe · 02-26-2010, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Firstly, just to clarify, are you imagining that Paul is describing Jesus as appearing to James for the very first time, the same as he appeared to Paul? The post-resurrection reading seems to be the most obvious one.

Only if you're arguing in a circle.

I am arguing in a circle if I claim that the post-resurrection reading seems to be the most obvious reading?

ApostateAbe · 02-26-2010, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul certainly thought of Jesus as spiritual, but there is actually a small handful of passages from authentic Pauline letters that indicate an Earthly human Jesus. I am compiling a list of such passages. You can explain those passages as interpolation or whatever, but interpolated passages typically have evidence.

"born of a woman" Galatians 4:4
"who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3
"I saw none of the other apostles--save James, the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8
"You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried" 1 Corinthians 15:4

Anyone is free to add to that list as they please.

There is not a single scrap of evidence in all those statements that prove he is speaking of a flesh and blood person.
That last statement is straight out of the O/T as are the others.

Either that, or Jesus was really prophesied by the Hebrew prophets and was the son of god,and the coming messiah.
It can't be both.

If you are imagining it to be a choice between purely myth and fully messiah, then that may be your problem. You need to get out of that mindset. Jesus could have been just a human being. At the least, it should be an obvious fact that Paul thought Jesus was at least in part human. What do you make of, "born of a woman"? That does not count as a single scrap of evidence? What about, "human nature was a descendant of David"? Still no scrap? I mean, what could it possibly take for there to be just a single scrap? A single scrap of evidence is not slam-dunk smoking-gun open-and-shut case-closed proof. It is something small. And, to me, this seems like some hefty evidence.

aa5874 · 02-26-2010, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

There is not a single scrap of evidence in all those statements that prove he is speaking of a flesh and blood person.
That last statement is straight out of the O/T as are the others.

Either that, or Jesus was really prophesied by the Hebrew prophets and was the son of god,and the coming messiah.
It can't be both.

If you are imagining it to be a choice between purely myth and fully messiah, then that may be your problem. You need to get out of that mindset. Jesus could have been just a human being. At the least, it should be an obvious fact that Paul thought Jesus was at least in part human. What do you make of, "born of a woman"? That does not count as a single scrap of evidence? What about, "human nature was a descendant of David"? Still no scrap? I mean, what could it possibly take for there to be just a single scrap? A single scrap of evidence is not slam-dunk smoking-gun open-and-shut case-closed proof. It is something small. And, to me, this seems like some hefty evidence.

Jesus was the product of a woman and the Holy Ghost of God.

Achilles was the product of a king and a sea goddess.

These are mythological entities.

Please show where Paul claimed Jesus was the son of a man and a woman.

The Pauline writer repeatedly claimed Jesus was the son of a God who was raised from the dead.

Again, Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost was said to have a human mother, a Virgin named Mary, this is consistent with the Pauline writings.

See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.34-35.

In gLuke, the author explain how Jesus was to be born of a woman without a human father.

Luke 1.34-35

Quote:

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

There you have it. Jesus was born of a woman and fathered by the HOLY GHOST.

Jesus must have been a God or else the Pauline writer would not have worshiped Jesus as a God. Jews do not worship men as God.

Galatians 1.1 cannot be ignored.

Kapyong · 02-26-2010, 01:14 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B

I've said it before and I'll say it again. And probably many times again in the future,

The best evidence for Jesus actually being a historical character is that a lot of what of his life and works that have come down to us via the Bible is consistent with him being a charismaric cult leader.

David B

I've said it before and I'll say it again. And probably many times again in the future,

The best evidence for Jesus actually being a mythical character is that a lot of what of his life and works that have come down to us via the Bible is consistent with him being a myth.

K.

Kapyong · 02-26-2010, 01:29 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"born of a woman" Galatians 4:4

Who was the woman, Abe?
You are pretending it's Mary,
but Paul NEVER says Mary,
and DOES say who the woman is :
" 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. "

The "woman" is the heavenly Jerusalem.
Nothing to do with an earthly woman at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"who as to his human nature was a descendant of David"

Christ is in all of us says Paul "Christ in you, the hope of glory". This merely means Christ ensouls all David's descendants.
Nothing to do with an earthly existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"I saw none of the other apostles--save James, the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19

So?
Paul refers to brothers of the Lord.
This is just a title.
Nothing to do with an earthly brother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

A cultic ritual that allegedly gave followers access to Christ's body? In a probably interpolated passage?
You think that is historical evidence for Jesus?
Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8

The "archons of this aeon" are spiritual beings, according to most scholars.
Nothing to do with anything earthly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

Where was he killed, according to Paul?
When?
"Killed the Lord Jesus" could just as easily mean a spiritual concept.
No clear mention of anything historical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried" 1 Corinthians 15:4

So, Paul tells us a new interpretation of the scriptures.
That's nothing to do with history at all.

That's Paul saying :
"I read the scriptures, and I realised the scriptures said Christ died and was buried."
Why do you think that is a historical reference?
It sounds nothing like it.

None of your cites are solid, Abe.
They are vague and unclear spiritual claims, with NO setting in history at all.

Just religious claims which you INTERPRET as historical.

K.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.