Peter Kirby

Perhaps whatever he got from Peter and James during those two weeks about Jesus as a man wasn't what Paul needed to base his preaching on. So he needs to appeal to supernatural revelation and scripture to make his points, that is, the points that Jesus defeated sin, that Gentiles are admitted into the Kingdom, etc.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

gurugeorge

The argument I've been making (in which I'm following Doherty as I understand him) has to do with what the early Christians affirm as well as what they don't affirm. And what they affirm is wall-to-wall unearthly Christ, of one sort or another (mystical, philosophical, visionary). The two together, the near total absence of one thing and the near total presence of another, form the puzzle, because what you'd rationally expect is the presence of both in a more balanced form. Especially in an apology aimed at explaining Christianity to an audience (hostile, neutral or interested).

I don't know if "necessary" is the right word (and I don't think we're anywhere near the stage where sequenced logical arguments are illuminating - at this stage, they could easily become a distraction).

I'd say, rather, that unless there was some strong reason for the early Christians to positively avoid mentioning the earthly Jesus, they wouldn't have been able to avoid writing about him, since (supposedly) the founder of their religion had an earthly ministry, gave earthly examples on how to live, etc., etc. The living Christ had only died a few decades before. He'd (supposedly) lived and said lots of important things on various subjects. He's (supposedly) had people whom he'd charged with spreading his word, his teaching, his "good news". It's not a question of why would they find it necessary to mention him - it's a question of why wouldn't they mention him, the fleshly Christ, and mention only the unearthly Christ, since he's such an important part of the picture (according to orthodoxy)?

The negative conclusion would be precarious where there's a kind of neutrality of context. E.g., the failure of a writer to mention a historical character casts no doubt on the character's existence where there is no particular reason we would expect them to mention him.

But the negative conclusion is plausible and believable in situations where, for example, the writing is meant to give some kind of rounded expression to the faith, the beliefs, etc. (as in the apologists). It is reasonably valid where (as sometimes in Paul) moral guidance is given, yet Christ is not given as the moral exemplar or arbiter. Why would someone draw on Scripture for moral examples, for instance, when there's a perfectly good founder of the very religion to use?

Peter Kirby

Now I'm not sure which "early Christians" we are talking about, and how early they are supposed to be. Are we talking about epistles or apologies? The earliest extant apology is no earlier than about 130 CE.

I was thinking entirely of the epistles, while you are extending the argument especially to apoogies, which I'll discuss but would distinguish in dating, intent, and form. I'm sure you'd like to discuss both, but let's do so under different headings.

In short, my response is that I don't have an a priori expectation that every author will give a balanced presentation (in either greater or lesser degree) of the human/past and divine/present aspects of Jesus. That is highly dependent on the aim in writing the particular text, for starters.

Since we're talking apologies, which apologists do you believe were unaware of anything about a human Jesus?

And since you'd also like to talk epistles and the use of an incident in the life of Jesus as a moral exemplar in Paul, perhaps you will point out where and how Paul would have done so.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

The meeting that you are referring to took place three years after Paul's conversion. Paul was probably preaching before that and apparently totally ignored what he had heard.

If you are correct then there was Paul's Christianity and Peter/James' Christianity.

How then do you explain that most, if not all, of the gospels is myth?
How do you explain that there was so little information of the man kept even by those who knew he was a man?

What about the other epitle writers? They do not seem to know anything about the man either.

Regards

Amaleq13

That's right. He was just a way for Christ to hide his heavenly glory so that the 'archons' would unknowingly sacrifice him.

The risen Christ, OTOH, could be considered the founder when he appeared to the first apostle and revealed "the gospel".

GakuseiDon

If so little information of the man was kept even by those who knew he was a man, doesn't this suggest that that kind of information wasn't important, even for those who knew he was a man?

If that is the case, then why be surprised when others don't provide much information?

Even the Gospels have very little information about the human Jesus - no details of what he looked like, not much about his family, etc. If these details were important, and the Gospel stories were fiction, then why weren't they included? Obviously, the writers didn't feel it necessary to include such details, for whatever reason.

Peter Kirby

That may be possible, even probable; but it doesn't follow from what I said (however much I may agree with it). I suggested that the material on Jesus as a man that Paul received from earlier disciples was not enough to provide a foundation for Paul's doctrines, that is, the points that Jesus defeated sin, that Gentiles are admitted into the Kingdom, etc. Moreover, even if it did follow from what I said, there's no intrinsic problem with the idea.

Is this supposed to be a difficulty? I would explain it the same way that I would the myths of King Arthur or Buddha, though Arthur and Buddha are more mythologized (and existence less secure but still plausible), or the myths of Apollonius of Tyana, who is about on a level with Jesus in these terms.

You don't know this premise.

For your argument to be meaningful, you should be saying, "they seem not to know anything about the man." But I don't see that as a valid inference. Perhaps you can quote what they say that leads you to that impression.

Besides, I thought you said that you are not concerned with a silence about an earthly life, but with a writer taking scripture and direct revelation as a source for belief about the mystery of Christ's salvation. Are you now again concerned with a simple silence about an earthly life?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

You said that Paul did not buy the earthly Jesus from Peter when he visited him (I am interpreting here). So it follows that there are two Christianities.

I am trying to picture this. Paul goes to Jerusalem, finds out that Jesus was a man, does not like it so he ignores the information.

Notice that Paul here says that all the apostles and prophets of this generation received the revelation through the Spirit.
Paul was not shy about difference with Peter over food restrictions.
You can draw your own conclusion.

Yes and no.
You gave me an explanation as to why Paul ignored the information about an earthly Jesus although (you claim) this information was available.
What is significant is that the silence in question is not unique to Paul.
So Paul says that the mystery of Christ is revealed not only to himself but to other apostles through the Spirit (Eph3:5) If this is unique to Paul one would expect other Epistle writers to not ignore the revelation provided by Jesus the man.

Your explanation of why Paul ignored Jesus the man as a revelation does not automatically explain why the rest of the epistle writers also ignore this.

NOGO

That is certainly a possibility.
Jesus' life and what he said may not be relevant to what Paul was teaching. (As Peter suggested)

What this suggests to me is that Jesus the man, if he existed, did not know what others would make of his death. This would definitely remove him as the founder of the faith.

If Paul has to find other sources of revelation about salvation and Yahweh's plans then Jesus the man is irrelevant to Paul. But is this the kind of historical Jesus that you are willing to settle for?

GakuseiDon

Would you say that Jesus's life and what he said was relevant to Ignatius? He gives no direct quotes or mentions any miracles in his 7 letters that are considered genuine.

Or was it relevant to the author of the Epistle of Barnabas? 'Barnabas' talks of Jesus "dwelling on earth", and "teaching Israel and doing great miracles", yet neither does he offer any examples of teachings or miracles.

What do you make of that?

I suggest that the similarities here to Paul's 'silence' shouldn't be overlooked. I also suggest that Doherty has largely ignored any comparisons with the other writings of the day, in both the first century and second century writings. The parallels between Paul and Ignatius are very interesting, and that will be the focus of my next review of Doherty's ideas.

Not a problem. I'll go wherever the evidence leads. It took me from atheism to theism (though I'm not interested in discussing this), and if it takes me elsewhere, so be it. That's the advantage of being a liberal, scratch-and-sniff Christian. Just one small step away from heresy!