Doug Shaver

Since people who love the man are not skeptics, I wasn't referring to them. I understand perfectly well why believers must insist on his historicity.

Sorry about that, but some of their dogma tramples on much that I hold dear.

Of course I expect it. I wasn't asking why people disagree with me. I was asking why some secularists disagree so vehemently, and it was only a rhetorical question.

If he were what you say he is, he could defend himself without your help. And I'm quite prepared to defend my scholarship against that of any apologist any day.

michael wellenberg

I think this is kind of misleading. When Paul mentions "brothers of the Lord" (1 Cor. 9:5) the context makes clear that all persons he refers to are historic figures.
When this reference to the Lord´s brothers is read in its context it is difficult to imagine why Paul would have referred to a non-historic person to back up his position, which is an important issue here.
Paul is struggling for his being equal and having equal rights as the other persons mentioned. It would be quite non-sensensical and not persuasive to refer to brothers of a non-historic person in this connection.

Michael

Vorkosigan

.....yes, and the question is, did they where the title "brother of the lord" because they tripped down the same birth canal, or because they held a position in the new religion called "brother of the lord."

Doug Shaver

What Vork said, except I assume he meant "wear" instead of "where."

michael wellenberg

The question was whether Paul´s reference to brothers indicate Jesus´ historicity. Doug opines this is not the case if I correctly understood him and would be only under the premise that Jesus was an historic figure. I think this is not what Paul conveys. He refers to physikal relatives of an historic figure.
When Mark describes Jesus´ family mentioning brothers in the way he does in 3:31-32 ; 6:3 this is not meant as a title and it is fairly reasonable that Paul did use it the same way.
This is coherent with Paul´s mentioning the Lord´s brothers together with the other apostles and Kephas, which does not mean different authorities with different titles but all being missionaries.

Michael

michael wellenberg

When Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 ("Christ who died ... and was buried") and in 15:31 ("Christ Jesus our Lord") means the same person then Paul´s reference in 9:5 to the Lord´s brothers does as well. So they were brothers of Christ Jesus who died and was buried. This is quite an unequivocal reference to a real person as far as I understand and to real brothers.

Michael

Didymus

At no point does Paul tell us when Jesus died, or when he was buried. Or even where!

Actually, by turning "brethren of the Lord" into a class action, 9:5 supports the theory that "the brethren" were an elite group of especially devout worshippers. Thus, Paul, by his own words, weakens the case of those historicists who insist that Galatians 1:19 is proof that Paul visited with a living brother of Jesus, namely James. One nineteen is much disputed, and, like the three other verses you cited, is anything but unequivocal evidence that Paul believed Jesus to be a man who lived in recent history. It could be taken that way, of course, but in truth it's the only place in the authentic Pauline writings that even implies that Jesus was person who lived in recent history. Nonetheless, it's often used by HJ people to defend their position. But that single, lonely example "ain't worth a hill of beans" in the larger picture. Paul's overwhelming lack of support for historicity, verse after verse, epistle after epistle, is breathtaking.

A few of examples, among many: Paul never once says that John, Peter and James were Jesus' companions during Jesus' earthly ministry. And only once does Paul quote Jesus by name, and that's when he has him intoning the eucharistic injunction, which in every respect sounds and reads like chuch ritual. Paul never mentions Pilate, the Trial, or Jesus' ministry in Galilee. Paul repeatedly fails to use Jesus' teachings, as they were reported in the gospels, to support his own. And the list goes on. And on.

Even thought I don't agree with Earl Doherty's conclusion that Paul's Jesus existed on a mystical, otherworldly plane, ED is the only scholar I know of who gives this issue its full due. Anyone who is interested in debating this issue cannot do so intelligently without reading "The Jesus Puzzle."

Didymus

Doug Shaver

I understand differently. I'm not sure what else to say.

No Robots

Name one mythicist who has been "stamped out". This is patent mythologizing. It's looking more and more like your mythicism comes from a deep-seated love of mythology. And your general slam on Christianity is a classic Bolshevist tactic.

michael wellenberg

Why do you think Paul should have mentioned date and place of Jesus´death in his letters ? This obviously was no issue under debate with Paul´s addressees. This is an argument of silence, I know, but in Paul´s case it is more than this :
Paul is struggling a lot with problems and discussions in several communities. Now when Paul mentioned a "Christ Jesus" in a letter and a debate arose over who were this "Jesus", did he ever live and when did he live and die there surely would be a response on such questions by Paul. There is none however.

I cited these pieces not in order to defend Jesus´historicity but only to show what Paul has to say about it. And these pieces clearly show that for him the Lord = Christ = Christ Jesus. And who do you think was "Jesus" for Paul ? So no defence needed.
As I suggested in a previous post 1 Cor. 9:5 should not be read in the light of Paul wishing to distinguish between persons of different dignities or titles because this would spoil his goal. On the other hand he clearly refers to historic figures and when the brothers were such why not their brother, the Lord ?

I think there is a huge misunderstanding about the intention of Paul´s letters and letters in general versus biographies.
Paul does not intend to provide his letters´audience with facts about Jesus´life because there was no more need to do so. He certainly had done precisely this when he first preached his gospel to them (perhaps using the same traditions as the synoptists). In his letters addressing questions of belief, daily life and so on there was no need to refer to Jesus´historic ministry. His letters had a complete different function. There is no sense in looking for something that cannot reasonably be there.

Michael