post tenebras lux

Goading you? Will I be bigotted against you next? [/derail]

How about the "universal attestation, even by dissidents"?

Chris Weimer

I'm sorry, are you asking me to prove a negative?

Chris Weimer

Tacitus and Lucian all testify to the crucifixion. Josephus does as well. The Talmud, if its the right Jesus, shows tradition of crucifixion. Paul, the gospels, the early Christians, the Gnostics all point to a crucifixion. Even those who didn't want Jesus to be crucified (for whatever reasons) still included the crucifixion in its storyline, just switched from Jesus to a Jesus look alike, or they changed the nature of Jesus from human to spirit only.

spamandham

...but it doesn't seem the least bit implausible that Paul would teach a very abbreviated gospel, such as what he himself describes, if he is putting his own spin on something pre-existing.

I infer from his lack of detail about Jesus in his writings, that his gospel is an addition to a pre-existing concept. The whole salvation gospel via Christ crucified seems likely to be Paul's idea, which he tacks onto some pre-existing "YHWH's salvation" concept. This would explain Paul's excessive submissiveness and self deprecation, and it would explain why he is deemed nuts by James and Cephas - they don't appreciate Paul trying to add these concepts to their story.

To project the synoptic gospel narratives back to Paul is anachronistic.

Amaleq13

I just asked you to explain your assumption. Pretty basic, really. No need for umbrage.

Silly rabbit, I wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't relevant.

Gamera

There is no evidence of that he preached an "abbreviated gospel." We know he preached a gospel, because he mentions that he did (over and over again). Tradition supports that. The epistles provide passing references to the content of the gospel he preached, but he does not attempt to recreate his preaching in his epistles. His epistles simply were not intended as preaching the gospel. His audience already heard his preaching. That's why he's writing epistles about it.

I don't think this is a good inference. We have no real examples of Paul's preaching (except arguable the address to the Athenians), and no real example of Peter or James' preaching. The epistles are simply not recreations of the preaching of the gospel. They are a totally different genre with a totally different purpose. It would be odd to find the gospel spelled out in them, not the reverse.

I'm not projecting at all. The synoptics exist. Paul preached a gospel. His references appear to accord with the synoptics. That's evidence that Paul's gospel was likely similar to the synoptic gospels.

You can disagree with the wieght of the evidence, but it is still evidence

Gamera

No, it's not question begging. It's the argument. My position is that if somebody says the told a story about a man who lived, and was crucified and was buried for three days and then rose from the dead and then appears to various witnesses, that this constitutes a reference to events in history and hence is intended as biography. Practices such as crucifixion are historical and take place at certain places and at certain times. And appearances to Paul's contemporary and himself, refer to places and times, not some timeless ahistorical presence.

So no it isn't question begging, I'm answering the question: the references appear to refer to an historical personage in Paul's discourse.

Gamera

I don't know what you mean by Paul doing perfectly well without mentioning Jesus life. Paul mentions the gospel he preached repeatedly, and the indication is that that gospel had biographical historical elements.

It certainly defies logic that he would have done very well setting up churches if his preaching was about a mystical jesus, not an historical one, since that fell by the way side pretty fast. Tradition doesn't have him preaching that at all. It must not have left much of an impression, and one wonders how he could have been so successful with such a failed strategy.

I don't see how since it would leave unexplained why his death would have a salvational effect. He seems at pains to point out the uniquesness of Jesus, which is what biography is all about.

Your position is implausible, so I'm not the one playing games. Paul's emphasis on the salvational effect of Jesus' death and resurrection implies a uniqueness about his life. He doesn't tell us what that is in his epistles. Why should he -- he already preached the gospel to the audience. But the argument makes no sense without it.

No, I'll stick with my plausible argument: the reference we have of the content of Paul's preaching, as referenced in the epistles, suggests a biography of Jesus in which his uniqueness is borne out. And this accords with the synoptics. And that suggest the stories were basically the same.

It's pretty special to have the form of God and not to show it. Near as I can tell it doesn't happen everyday, or at least Paul didn't think it did. We could get into deep waters with this, because Paul is clear that Jesus' divinity is expressed in his conduct, his mercy, his course of life. But that's too big a topic for this thread.

Sure;

Acts 17:

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead." 32

So Jesus's resurrection is seen as part of God's purpose in assuring humanity of that his day of judgment is coming, and Jesus has been "appointed" by God to judge the world -- an historical event if there ever was one.

No, he never said that. He said he was in the form of God, but he took on the form of man. It's that duality that apparently interested Paul here. It's not a simple claim, but it surely doesn't mean what you say here.

Oh please. The "before" is part of Jesus' biography. To say someone is the Son of God is a biographical claim at its core. It doesn't just bracket his existence. It informs what makes it unique.

Rick Sumner

That salvational effect is his gospel. Any narrative underlying that is just that--a narrative underlying his gospel. But Paul's gospel--the one "he already preached"--is God's eschatological plan to ultimately save ethnic Israel.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spamandham

What we have no evidence of, is the details you presume existed. All we know from his writings, is the vaguary of his writings on the subject. We don't know that his gospel was more than his letters contain, though it seems reasonable he would have expanded on it in verbal form. We still can't say what that expansion was, assuming there was one.

If you think you can figure out more detail than that, it's up to you to demonstrate.

Tradition also supports that Jesus rose from the dead.

It isn't unreasonable to presume Paul's verbal gospel contained more detail than what his letters state. But it is unreasonable to project the synoptic gospels back onto Paul and assume his gospel matched them (never mind that they don't even match eachother!). Paul wrote perhaps as much as 100 years earlier. Even the 30 or so year delta Christian apologists typically assume is too much to make such a projection.

Need any more be said?