Vinnie

I don't remember seeing any major time shifts in Luke here between 1:5 and 2:1:

5In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah

2:1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

Luke connects it with the time of Herod just as does Matthew. Luke also explicitly states Jesus was about 30 when he started his ministry which is consistent.

That Luke messed up on the census is news to no one. He probably conflated the riots at Herod's death (4.bc) with the riots at the census of Quirinius (6ad). A slight historical error on his part.

Not to mention all the other details which connect Jesus to this general area. See argument for ground zero in paper.

And Paul who knows Jesus followers in the fifties must be seen as consistent with this general time frame of c 4 BCE
That is what I base my argument on.

That Jesus had followers is attested to by these sources:

The Q Gospel (see whole thing)
The Gospel of Thomas (see whole thing esp vv. 12 and 13).
Barnabas Epistle (chapter 5)
Gospel of Mark (see whole thing)
Gospel of John (see whole thing)
Josephus (see Partially Reconstructed Testimonium Flavianum)
Paul (see discussion below)
List of the Twelve Used by Mark
List of Twelve used by Luke (see argument below)
Crucifixion of Jesus (as opposed to a private murder--crucifixion was for deterrence--Jesus would never had been crucified by Pilate had he not had any following or people claiming him messiah or some such thing)

Inccluded in the Gospels must be a host of other sources as well.

Not to mention numerous follwoers of Jesus are indepdnently attested to in a host of sources.

We could even cite lesser known figures such as Salome. She is mentioned in Thomas, Mark and Gospel to The Egyptians. Threefold indepdnent attestation of sources and forms!

Mary Magdalene, Thomas, James, Peter, the traditions of the Twelve and so on. Its absurd, given all the independently overlapping traditions on this to claim that there wasn't an HJ who had followers and that this was not known early.

I don't know why you waste your time doubting it in the first place.

Vinnie

Vinnie

There are and I gave them to you. To add to this, E.P. Sanders in Studying the Synoptic Gospels argues the passage is triply attested (independently!) and that it even appears to "go against the grain" slightly in Matthew and Paul. Not to mention that funnily enough in Cor 7 Paul is careful not to put words into Jesus' mouth (7:25)!


1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. Paul just says "the Lord".

The double independent attestation outside of the Pauline corpus and the different forms of this saying lead me to the conclusion that your assetion that Paul eceived this command from heavenly revelation is sheer,imagined nonsense.

You are forcing mythicism into the Christian record rather than letting the data speak for themselves. Collectively, there is no denying this.

Apparently you didn't read me. I did not pick one over the other. As to the specific formulation (longer or shorter form of saying) the judgment in non liquet. As to Jesus saying something on divorce is highly probable. I recommend E.P. Sanders (Studying Synoptic Gospels, pp. 324-329) treatment of this passage if anyone has the chance to view it.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I'm not sure how legitimate this effort is to "rehab" Luke but, accepting it for the sake of the argument, that removes the tangential point about Matthew vs Luke but there still remains absolutely nothing in Paul to support the Gospel claim for Jesus' birth.

And the reason it is flawed remains the same: you are taking information from later texts and reading them into Paul and then claiming you find confirmation of those claims in Paul! Your initial statement for this was that there is information about the historical Jesus in Paul. Paul does not identify anyone as a follower of the living Jesus.

In this current discussion, I'm not. What I am disputing is your claim that Paul confirms the living Jesus had followers. That is clearly false. He says nothing of the sort.

Amaleq13

Yes, Paul was quite careful to differentiate information revealed to him from the Risen Christ and his own personal opinions.

Correct and that is a title he consistently associates with the Risen Christ. It is the Risen Christ who gave him this command, not the living Jesus who he never met.

I think that has more to do with your own presuppositions than a careful consideration of the evidence. Given the varied nature of the pronouncements on divorce, what is to prevent one from concluding that individuals with varying opinions on divorce imposed their thoughts onto their depictions of Jesus?

Untrue. Even within the context of an assumed historical Jesus, there does not appear to be any good reason to conclude that Paul is talking about a teaching given by the living Jesus. He doesn't say "Jesus said this" and he doesn't say when or where it was spoken. He simply offers a command and says it is from the Lord. When Paul talks about "the Lord", he is talking about the Risen Christ.

Vinnie

Paul the pharisee who believed in bodily resurrection? That guy?

I sure hope you apply this same ridiculous standard to all historical works and not just Christian texts.

The reason all these independnent witnesses agree is cause everyone made them up. I'd love to see that applied to Josephus, Tacitus or other writers cross referenced from the same general time period! Absolutely brilliant historical skepticism.

Vinnie

Celsus

Please tone down the rhetoric Vinnie. It is uncalled for.

Joel

Vinnie

Roger that

Vinnie

Amaleq13

No, Paul the Christian who believed that one was resurrected in a "spiritual body" and that Christ was the "spiritual Adam".

I wrote:
Given the varied nature of the pronouncements on divorce, what is to prevent one from concluding that individuals with varying opinions on divorce imposed their thoughts onto their depictions of Jesus?

Vinnie replied:
Given similar evidence, of course. What you call "ridiculous" is clearly "rational" given an attempt to avoid presuppositions. When we have varying commands on divorce attributed to Jesus, that evidence suggests 1) divorce was a topic Christians were concerned about and 2) nobody actually knew if Jesus said anything about it or, if he did, exactly what he said. Paul, consistent with the overall context of his entire body of letters, has a personal connection with the Risen Christ through which he obtained his gospel and, apparently, specific commands on particular issues. The image of Paul devoutly studying Scripture and praying in order to obtain an understanding of what the Risen Christ commanded on the topic of divorce seems entirely consistent with Paul's expressed theology.

And, yes, I noticed you have entirely avoided the question in favor of more 'ad hominem' approach. Unless you intend to actually address the question, I'll take that as an indication you lack any substantive response.

But they don't agree! Paul's command from Christ offers no exceptions while Matthew's teaching from the living Jesus does. It is not rational to conclude that this can only mean that Jesus said "something" about divorce. It is precisely this sort of sloppy scholarship that serves to reduce the credibility of your argument.