Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 06-21-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

So, are you saying that you are ok with the assumptions? If not, why aren't you providing passages where we should expect something other than what is there IF my assumptions are correct? And, why aren't you providing passages that you think contradict my assumptions?

I don't mean to be nasty here, but this is the premise. The goal is to TEST the assumptions--not to CRITIQUE them.

EDIT: I'm sorry. This is what 4 hours of sleep will do to me. You did put them to the test generically. I think you are saying that the assumptions of preaching at all on earth--and not just on the kingdom of God, being arrested on earth, and crucified during Passover on earth, are not supported by Paul. And I assume you think he should have mentioned them. Before I respond to these claims may I ask where and why?

I'm not an academic so feel free to dismiss me as a lightweight. Others here like spin can actually read the Koine and have done some research.

My point is that everything about Christian origins seems to be based on shaky assumptions. That there was a real Paul or a real Jesus are assumptions, they can't be proven historically. That the first Christians lived and taught before the fall of the temple are assumptions, witnessed only by church tradition, particularly the gospels and Acts.

That Jesus lived ca 30 ce, or that he was a Galilean, or that he was killed by Pilate or some other Roman authority are all story points without external corroboration. We do have the testimony of Tacitus, Pliny et al that there were some kind of Christians by the early 2nd C. That's about all the confirmation we have.

We know that early apologists fought vigorously against heretics from the 2nd C onward. The texts we have in the New Testament are catholicized, and in some cases may have originated with gnostics or people like Marcion.

Coming back to Paul, we know how important his letters were/are to Catholic teaching. As you say he was the main apostle to the gentiles (assuming a Jewish origin for the whole thing, which isn't ironclad either). His description of Christ is supernatural, not mundane. There is almost nothing in the letters which could answer ordinary questions from converts: "Did this being walk the earth?" "Where and when?" "What did he look like?" etc. Paul doesn't quote Jesus or the other apostles who supposedly followed him, and doesn't cite examples from their lives.

Paul is describing a saviour, not a teacher. If we accept the apocalyptic theme then it didn't matter what Jesus taught because he was returning soon anyway before the final judgment. Paul and the others were just waiting for the end, not creating a new sect.

Hi bacht. Thanks for your thoughts. Have you read this?http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...op20/id24.html I'm not an academic either, but I wrote it and although it contains debatable passage interpretations from my perspective the overall picture of Paul which you describe doesn't square with reality.

I do agree though that there is so much missing as to make a reconstruction such as what I did at the above link questionable.

aa5874 · 06-21-2010, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Let's assume Jesus was a preacher who did not perform miracles, and who preached of the coming kingdom of God but not of his own resurrection, and that he was arrested and crucified during Passover during Paul's lifetime.

In Paul's letters he talks about Christ in heaven with God, not what he did or said on earth. The Passion has to be read into the texts, there are no details provided.

But, how could you be so wrong. The Pauline writings are EXACTLY about what JESUS did on EARTH.

Do you NOT understand that the Pauline writings are FUNDAMENTALLY about the CRUCIFIXION, DEATH and RESURRECTION of JESUS when he was ON EARTH?

Without the RESURRECTION of JESUS on the third day on EARTH then there would have been no remission of sin.

According to a Pauline writer it was the LORD JESUS who told him of his own betrayal in the night and it was the very LORD who told "Paul" of his conversation on Earth. See 1 Cor 11.23.

The Pauline writings are FUNDAMENTALLY about certain SPECIFIC events on EARTH, the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus and the Gospel that JESUS gave to Paul in the AFTER LIFE. See Galatians 1.

Quote:

Let's further assume Jesus did not preach about salvation to the Gentiles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Paul doesn't tell us what Jesus said.

The Pauline writings are NOT really about what Jesus said to the disciples on EARTH. The Pauline writings are about the Gospel from the RESURRECTED Jesus to PAUL from heaven.

Even in the Gospels, Jesus told his disciples that there were CERTAIN things that he could NOT tell them when he was ON EARTH.

John 16.12-13

Quote:

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Pauline writings are about the Gospel from the RESURRECTED JESUS to PAUL.

It is futile to assume that the Pauline writers did not claim Jesus was resurrected when that was the FUNDAMENTAL reason for the Pauline writings.

1 Cor 15.13-17

Quote:

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins.

There would have NO Pauline writings without the RESURRECTION of Jesus.

If we assume Jesus did not resurrect we must assume we have NO Pauline writings.

In effect, the very Epistles with name Paul were written in vain and completely useless if Jesus was NOT raised from the dead.

bacht · 06-21-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

In Paul's letters he talks about Christ in heaven with God, not what he did or said on earth. The Passion has to be read into the texts, there are no details provided.

But, how could you be so wrong. The Pauline writings are EXACTLY about what JESUS did on EARTH.

I don't think so. Besides, how can anyone be sure what the original teaching of "Paul" was?

Obviously there was a death and resurrection, that much we can agree on. Where or when is not so clear. The other canonical epistles never tell us this either, even though all the NT letters were supposedly written by contemporary witnesses. We have to wait for Mark and the others to bring it all down to earth.

aa5874 · 06-21-2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, how could you be so wrong. The Pauline writings are EXACTLY about what JESUS did on EARTH.

I don't think so. Besides, how can anyone be sure what the original teaching of "Paul" was?

Obviously there was a death and resurrection, that much we can agree on. Where or when is not so clear. The other canonical epistles never tell us this either, even though all the NT letters were supposedly written by contemporary witnesses. We have to wait for Mark and the others to bring it all down to earth.

But, you must admit that if you are not sure that the Pauline writers wrote about what Jesus did on earth that THERE are other sources of antiquity that CLEARLY propagate that it was the TRADITION that Jesus was on EARTH.

When the author of gMark claimed Jesus was on trial before Pilate was the trial in heaven or on earth? You are are not sure?

When the author of Mark claimed Jesus was WALKING on the sea of Galilee was the sea of Galilee in heaven or earth? You are not sure?

When the author of Mark claimed Jesus was betrayed at Gethsemane was Gethsemane in heaven or earth? You are not sure?

I think it most likely that the Pauline writers were writing about the same Jesus of gMark. I am sure that a Pauline writing contain information about the betrayal of Jesus in the night after he supped and that Jesus was RAISED from the dead the third day after he was crucified.

I am sure that the same things about Jesus can be found in gMark.

You are not sure?

If you are not sure about things that are said to have occurred on earth explain where outside of earth that Pilate and Jesus may have met or the betrayal could have occurred.

TedM · 06-21-2010, 02:13 PM

After taking a long drive this afternoon, I've decided to bow out of this thread because even though my intentions were good-to see how well or not well my specific 'minimal Jesus' fits into Paul's epistles, I realized that it will just be a long rehash of old stuff, with perhaps a few exceptions.

Consider it a temporary bout of insanity, if you will..I apologize for any indescretions..

I may be in for another hiatus. Thanks for the various inputs, and feel free to continue without me.

Before I go, I'm just wondering what the latest is on the HJ discussion. I saw that Earl mentioned having a new book out. R Carrier was considering one a while back too--did that go anywhere? Also, Abe mentioned something about a cookie-cutter HJ theory--what is that all about? Or, Vork's book on Mark?

Don, take care. I always respected your approach and manner here.

Thanks,

ted

Toto · 06-21-2010, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...
Before I go, I'm just wondering what the latest is on the HJ discussion. I saw that Earl mentioned having a new book out.

Yes - an expanded version of the Jesus Puzzle, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

R Carrier was considering one a while back too--did that go anywhere?

He's working on it now.

Quote:

Also, Abe mentioned something about a cookie-cutter HJ theory--what is that all about?

There's a thread on it - there's an FFRF nontract with that as a title. It's the copycat theory of Jesus as a reworked pagan god.

Quote:

Or, Vork's book on Mark?

Haven't heard. But his website is still up and he occasionally posts to the JM list.

TedM · 06-21-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...
Before I go, I'm just wondering what the latest is on the HJ discussion. I saw that Earl mentioned having a new book out.

Yes - an expanded version of the Jesus Puzzle, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)

He's working on it now.

There's a thread on it - there's an FFRF nontract with that as a title. It's the copycat theory of Jesus as a reworked pagan god.

Quote:

Or, Vork's book on Mark?

Haven't heard. But his website is still up and he occasionally posts to the JM list.

thanks.

GakuseiDon · 06-21-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Don, take care. I always respected your approach and manner here.

Hi Ted, ditto there. As I think you can see, while you've been gone this board has moved towards mythicism quite dramatically, which is interesting.

I'm hoping to finish a review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God nor Man" in the next couple of months; I'll send you a note via your website when I've put it up on mine. BTW, I like your conclusions page on the 20 silences that you linked to in this thread -- powerful stuff! Catch you later.

TedM · 06-21-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Don, take care. I always respected your approach and manner here.

Hi Ted, ditto there. As I think you can see, while you've been gone this board has moved towards mythicism quite dramatically, which is interesting.

I'm hoping to finish a review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God nor Man" in the next couple of months; I'll send you a note via your website when I've put it up on mine. BTW, I like your conclusions page on the 20 silences that you linked to in this thread -- powerful stuff! Catch you later.

Thanks Don. I look forward to your review.

Doug Shaver · 06-22-2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Given this backdrop:
1. What references to this minimal historical Jesus should we expect Paul to have made?

I can't be specific. But, Paul clearly believed that Jesus (whoever, or whatever, he thought Jesus was) was the fulfillment of various prophecies that he (Paul) found in Jewish scriptures. I would expect him to mention specific things that Jesus had said or done that made him think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

2. What references in Paul's presumed writings are contrary to this kind of Jesus (make sure they refer to him prior to the resurrecton)?

I see nothing in Paul's presumed writings that refer unambiguously to anything at all about Jesus' life prior to his death and resurrection. That is what I think is contrary to your hypothesis.

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

06-21-2010, 02:13 PM	#55
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	After taking a long drive this afternoon, I've decided to bow out of this thread because even though my intentions were good-to see how well or not well my specific 'minimal Jesus' fits into Paul's epistles, I realized that it will just be a long rehash of old stuff, with perhaps a few exceptions. Consider it a temporary bout of insanity, if you will..I apologize for any indescretions.. I may be in for another hiatus. Thanks for the various inputs, and feel free to continue without me. Before I go, I'm just wondering what the latest is on the HJ discussion. I saw that Earl mentioned having a new book out. R Carrier was considering one a while back too--did that go anywhere? Also, Abe mentioned something about a cookie-cutter HJ theory--what is that all about? Or, Vork's book on Mark? Don, take care. I always respected your approach and manner here. Thanks, ted

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.