Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 08-20-2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

He said Jesus was crucified. Did he never have to explain why, of all the thousands of men who had died that way (many of them named Jesus), God had chosen this particular one to raise from the dead and endow with divine attributes?

If Paul had a vision or hallucination or even an overwhelming 'revelation' of a risen Christ, then he had all he needed--his own witness. For others, Paul uses scriptures, the testimony of resurrection appearances to others before him, and his own experience of the resurrection as the reasons for his audience to believe.

How did those others know what man he was referring to, if he was referring to a man?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The simple answer then to your question would be that all Paul needed to conclude that it was THIS man was enough scriptural support for the Messiah to be resurrected: ie if a man was resurrected, then he was that Messiah.

I see nothing in his writings to suggest that was his reasoning. And I say again that something that Paul thought he knew about Jesus had to predispose him to believe the disciples' story about his being resurrected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If Jesus was meek and poor just as Paul described him and he was very godly (Paul describes him as sinless), but was not a great healer and his preaching was neither extensive or unique, then Paul would have little reason to focus on much more than the resurrection and its meaning in his writings, which were primarily to Gentiles who Paul saw as benefiting from belief in the resurrection by faith. That's a kind of historical Jesus that I see little basis for expecting Paul to have said much about.

It's the kind of historical Jesus that I see little basis for expecting Paul to imagine having been raised from the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

IF Jesus had been crucified during Passover then it is possible that some of the visions or revelations people had were actually due to the realization that one could interpret those actions as a paschal sacrifice (as Paul does), which ties in nicely with the idea of a Messiah-Savior: Just as the pure lamb is sacrificed for the sins of Israel, the sinless lamb of God was sacrificed for the sins of Israel and--for Paul--the sins of the world. It seems to me that if ANY man some wondered was the Messiah was killed during Passover, the conditions would be ripe for the elevation of that man to the Messiah-Savior role, and belief of his resurrection would not be unlikely.

I have no argument against "it is possible." I see nothing else to recommend such a hypothesis.

TedM · 08-20-2011, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

He said Jesus was crucified. Did he never have to explain why, of all the thousands of men who had died that way (many of them named Jesus), God had chosen this particular one to raise from the dead and endow with divine attributes?

If Paul had a vision or hallucination or even an overwhelming 'revelation' of a risen Christ, then he had all he needed--his own witness. For others, Paul uses scriptures, the testimony of resurrection appearances to others before him, and his own experience of the resurrection as the reasons for his audience to believe.

How did those others know what man he was referring to, if he was referring to a man?

Here's one where I see no need for Paul to identify the Jesus he is referring to because his readers already know which one he was referring to. He wasn't writing to non-believers in any of his letters. This lack of identification applies to a mythical 'man' who never walked the earth as well as to a Jesus, son of Joseph, from Galiliee. In both scenarios Paul's readers had no need for Jesus' background to have been mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The simple answer then to your question would be that all Paul needed to conclude that it was THIS man was enough scriptural support for the Messiah to be resurrected: ie if a man was resurrected, then he was that Messiah.

I see nothing in his writings to suggest that was his reasoning. And I say again that something that Paul thought he knew about Jesus had to predispose him to believe the disciples' story about his being resurrected.

As for your last point, with his scriptural knowledge why would he have needed anything other than some people who said they saw him resurrected were also claiming that he was the Messiah? It would appear he did require that the man be Jewish, and descended from David, and sinless, since he appeals to those characteristics. With his scriptural background that was ALL he might have needed, since it was scripture that convinced him that the Messiah concept could be fulfilled via a resurrected man.

I wonder why --for you-- should Paul have any more requirement for a historical Jesus than a Doherty-style Jesus who lived in another sphere?

As for your comment that Paul didn't reason that a resurrected man would be the Messiah, it is clear Paul believed that Jesus had been resurrected. It was clear he believed also that the resurrection was the means by which sin no longer had rule over death, and by which through faith in that resurrection men would be saved--thus the Messiah-Savior link. Paul references scripture that refers to the stumbling block to Jews and places that --again via scripture--to Zion, which was Jerusalem. The claims for a crucified man to have been the Messiah were a stumbling block for the Jews and Paul saw that as more scriptural support for the truth of the resurrection. He references scripture that refers to the Messiah sitting on the right hand of God..and if that wasn't enough for Paul he also clearly says he 'saw' Jesus: "Have I not seen Jesus? ", he asks.

The above is not a well-organized argument but Paul repeatedly writes of the resurrection as the basis for his faith that Jesus had been the long awaited Messiah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If Jesus was meek and poor just as Paul described him and he was very godly (Paul describes him as sinless), but was not a great healer and his preaching was neither extensive or unique, then Paul would have little reason to focus on much more than the resurrection and its meaning in his writings, which were primarily to Gentiles who Paul saw as benefiting from belief in the resurrection by faith. That's a kind of historical Jesus that I see little basis for expecting Paul to have said much about.

It's the kind of historical Jesus that I see little basis for expecting Paul to imagine having been raised from the dead.

Yet he can imagine Jesus being raised from the dead had he never even lived on earth (it the Doherty theory)? If Paul's imagination was so great that he could 'see' a risen Jesus who never even walked this earth and who he 'knew' only through his interpretations of scripture, why would a historical Jesus have required any more of Paul? How does having a an actual man who walked the earth create additional requirements on Paul's standards if the basics that he DOES reveal --meek, poor, humble, sinless--are consistent with what he finds to be most important--the resurrection itself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

IF Jesus had been crucified during Passover then it is possible that some of the visions or revelations people had were actually due to the realization that one could interpret those actions as a paschal sacrifice (as Paul does), which ties in nicely with the idea of a Messiah-Savior: Just as the pure lamb is sacrificed for the sins of Israel, the sinless lamb of God was sacrificed for the sins of Israel and--for Paul--the sins of the world. It seems to me that if ANY man some wondered was the Messiah was killed during Passover, the conditions would be ripe for the elevation of that man to the Messiah-Savior role, and belief of his resurrection would not be unlikely.

I have no argument against "it is possible." I see nothing else to recommend such a hypothesis.

Let's say that possibility was reality--ie Jesus was crucified during Passover. Would you still require more than that of Paul for him to have believed in his resurrection? How much more? Let's start with a clean slate:

How much more would Paul have needed to believe about a historical Jesus in order to be persuaded that he had been resurrected and was the Messiah than the idea of a sinless Jewish descendant of David who was crucified during Passover, and who was being reported by people to have been resurrected from the dead--IF he could easily be persuaded through scripture that such a resurrection would be equivalent to the defeat of the punishment of death for sins, and enable the salvation of the world as 'prophesied' in Isaiah and elsewhere?

And IF that was enough for Paul to become a believer, would you still have required that Paul say more about the historical Jesus in letters that he didn't write with the purpose of trying to make anybody believe that Jesus had been resurrected?

avi · 08-20-2011, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It is fairly clear that the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as a more Godlike and less human figure than other gospels. In this sense, it matches the theology of the Epistles of Paul, who also portrays Jesus in Godlike terms. The epistles of Paul are commonly considered to be written prior to the Synoptic Gospels. In the world of ordinary logic, this would make us believe that the Gospel of John too would also be earlier than the synoptics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is an EXTREMELY significant observation that gJohn appears to match the theology of the Pauline writings.
....
In the Pauline writings, "Paul" knew of a written source that STATED that Jesus died, was buried and was raised on the THIRD day. See 1 Cor. 15

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thanks for this reference.
...
... in verse 3, we find the famous "kata tas grafas" , Latin Vulgate: pro peccatis nostris secundum scripturas, ENGLISH: according to the scriptures.

...
Can I impose upon you, the task of identifying the precise verse which claims that Paul knew of written text describing the death and resurrection of JC, three days later?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have already shown 1 Cor.15 many times.

People here ASSUME that "Paul" refers to Hebrew Scripture when he did NOT make such a claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Co 15:3-4

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures....

Are you implying that "Paul" could NOT have been referring to the Jesus story as found in the Gospel?

I hope not.

Thanks for your reply.

To answer your question: No. My post solicited identification of the precise verse within 1 Corinthians 15, wherein one could read a reference to one of the four Gospels--John, or anyone of the synoptics.

The issue is now clear:

Does "kata tas grafas" refer to ancient Hebrew texts, or to one (or more) of the four gospels. (Of course, "kata tas grafas" could also refer to BOTH the ancient Hebrew texts AND the much newer Gospels, and, it also could refer to some alternate published text, currently unknown.)

It would appear, that you, aa5874, accept, on faith, the idea that "kata tas grafas", refers to one or more of the four gospels, rather than the ancient Hebrew texts of the "old testament".

Have you some evidence in support of this hypothesis? Perhaps there is another passage in the letters of Paul, in which "kata tas grafas" appears, and is unmistakably associated with one or more of the four gospels?

I do not have any evidence to the contrary: i.e. I have no citation in which "kata tas grafas" definitely relates to the ancient Hebrew texts.

avi

Little Dot · 08-20-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I would like to compile of a list of the best reasons for believing this. So far I have these reasons:

1. Irenaeus and the other Church Fathers say that John wrote it last.

Jay Raskin

According to Rebecca A. Sexton:

Quote:

The most influential book ever written by a Catholic, the Code of Canon Law known as the Decretum, was written in the mid-1100’s by a Benedictine monk named Gratian. He quoted from popes 324 times, but only eleven of those are genuine. He not only depended on 3rd century forgeries and his own faulty conclusions from them, but he also used the 9th century forgeries known as the Isidorian and Cyril Decretals, which contained hundreds of supposed quotes from early church fathers and popes, none of which were legitimate. Now...we go to Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. He writes his Summa Theologica, the second most renown work by a Catholic. He bases all his conclusions on the work of Gratian. This doesn’t include all the other authors, who throughout the centuries, quoted from both these men’s works. All of them based on lies.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/RC144.htm

I don' think the supposed church fathers should be relied on as heavily as some do on them.

aa5874 · 08-21-2011, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

....It would appear, that you, aa5874, accept, on faith, the idea that "kata tas grafas", refers to one or more of the four gospels, rather than the ancient Hebrew texts of the "old testament"....

I accept NOTHING on faith. I have only SHOWED you the EXTANT WRITTEN evidence. I can ONLY investigate the WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity.

You seem not to understand the difference between Truth and Evidence. You should know that people who swear to tell the truth, even today, may still give false information that is not detect in court trials.

Verdicts are based on the PRESENTED EXTANT evidence which may not all be truthful.

I can ONLY show you what is PRESENTED in the Pauline writings and other sources.

It is claimed that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke and in the Pauline writings there are words found that are found ONLY used in gLuke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...Have you some evidence in support of this hypothesis? Perhaps there is another passage in the letters of Paul, in which "kata tas grafas" appears, and is unmistakably associated with one or more of the four gospels?

I do not have any evidence to the contrary: i.e. I have no citation in which "kata tas grafas" definitely relates to the ancient Hebrew texts.

avi

Well, please show exactly where in Hebrew Scripture it is UNMISTAKABLY written that Jesus Christ died, was buried and was raised on the THIRD day.

I will SHOW gLuke.

Lu 24:46 -

Quote:

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.....

1 Cor 15

Quote:

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures...

No such thing is written in Hebrew Scripture. "Paul" and "Luke" made a similar FALSE claim.

You MUST admit that "Paul" may have simply used gLuke.

I eagerly AWAIT your Hebrew Scripture that is UNMISTAKABLY about the death, burial and THIRD day resurrection of Jesus.

Doug Shaver · 08-21-2011, 07:45 AM

Ted, this is starting to take more of my time than I have free. For the nonce, I can respond only to the following.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

How much more would Paul have needed to believe about a historical Jesus in order to be persuaded that he had been resurrected and was the Messiah than the idea of a sinless Jewish descendant of David who was crucified during Passover, and who was being reported by people to have been resurrected from the dead--IF he could easily be persuaded through scripture that such a resurrection would be equivalent to the defeat of the punishment of death for sins, and enable the salvation of the world as 'prophesied' in Isaiah and elsewhere?

I don't see how he could have believed that Jesus of Nazareth was sinless. Paul seems to have been convinced that a sinless human life was not possible. If he had thought the life of Jesus was an exception, he would have said so explicitly (e.g. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, save only our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"), and he would have explained in some detail why he thought so. And, the only explanation that could have been available to him was the testimony of Jesus' disciples, which he would have had to cite, no matter how obliquely.

TedM · 08-21-2011, 09:36 AM

OT: last post on this since it is off-topic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Ted, this is starting to take more of my time than I have free. For the nonce, I can respond only to the following.

No problem Doug. As we've discussed, I know the feeling. I still intend to respond some day to your review of the partial TF article by C. Price--when time allows...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

How much more would Paul have needed to believe about a historical Jesus in order to be persuaded that he had been resurrected and was the Messiah than the idea of a sinless Jewish descendant of David who was crucified during Passover, and who was being reported by people to have been resurrected from the dead--IF he could easily be persuaded through scripture that such a resurrection would be equivalent to the defeat of the punishment of death for sins, and enable the salvation of the world as 'prophesied' in Isaiah and elsewhere?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

I don't see how he could have believed that Jesus of Nazareth was sinless.
Paul seems to have been convinced that a sinless human life was not possible.

For non-divine humans, yes. You do know, I suppose, that Paul clearly says his Jesus was without sin? A paschal lamb (called Passover in the NASB version) must be without blemish:

1 Cor 5:7

Quote:

Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.

2 Cor 5:21

Quote:

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Paul well may have written Hebrews also:
Hebrews 4:15

Quote:

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

The author of 1 Peter turns to scripture to support the sinless concept in 2:22

Quote:

WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH

So, Paul believed it, and he didn't need anyone to tell him that Jesus of Nazareth was sinless.

Quote:

If he had thought the life of Jesus was an exception, he would have said so explicitly (e.g. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, save only our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"), and he would have explained in some detail why he thought so. And, the only explanation that could have been available to him was the testimony of Jesus' disciples, which he would have had to cite, no matter how obliquely.

The scripture quoted from 1 Peter is a well-known one in early christian circles which comes from Isaiah 53. This shows again that there was another source besides that of the disciples that Paul could have relied on. I again do not agree that Paul had to go over the elementary portrayal of a sinless Jesus with his audience who needed no convincing and would have already been aware of Paul's teaching on the matter.

Lastly, I might point out that in Acts the growth of Christianity did NOT rely on portraying Jesus as a teacher or healer. Very little is said about that. However, it did rely heavily on the claims of Jesus as having been resurrected as well as scriptural support for Jesus' resurrection having been foretold in OT scripture. See Jay's recent thread on the topic a thttp://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=305631 Either the author(s) of Acts also considered the ministry of a historical Jesus to pale in comparison to the resurrection claims or other early apostles besides Paul felt the same way. Either way the perspective is similar: proving out the hypothesis that Jesus is/was the Messiah had more to do with the resurrection of Jesus than the sayings and doings of Jesus.

The reason I reviewed Doherty's Top 20 'silences', which included many in Paul's epistles, was because the expectation for mentions of a historical Jesus need to take into account the theology of the writer, the purposes of his writings, and the knowledge of his audience. We certainly may expect that Paul had curiosities about Jesus the person, but that alone doesn't mean we should expect him to have mentioned this or that in a particular writing or even in any of his writings. The overall context brought to each writing is critical to making such a judgment.

aa5874 · 08-21-2011, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

.....The scripture quoted from 1 Peter is a well-known one in early christian circles which comes from Isaiah 53. This shows again that there was another source besides that of the disciples that Paul could have relied on.....

1 Peter was BEFORE the Pauline writings?

When and who wrote 1 Peter?

TedM · 08-21-2011, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

.....The scripture quoted from 1 Peter is a well-known one in early christian circles which comes from Isaiah 53. This shows again that there was another source besides that of the disciples that Paul could have relied on.....

1 Peter was BEFORE the Pauline writings?

When and who wrote 1 Peter?

Irrelevant to my point..the source I'm referring to for Paul is not 1 Peter, it is Isaiah 53.

aa5874 · 08-21-2011, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

.....The scripture quoted from 1 Peter is a well-known one in early christian circles which comes from Isaiah 53. This shows again that there was another source besides that of the disciples that Paul could have relied on.....

1 Peter was BEFORE the Pauline writings?

When and who wrote 1 Peter?

Irrelevant to my point..the source I'm referring to for Paul is not 1 Peter, it is Isaiah 53.

Well, what you say is still irrelevant. Isaiah 53 has ZERO about a character called Jesus Christ.

Jews were AWARE of Isaiah for HUNDREDS of years BEFORE the Jesus stories yet there is NO evidence from antiquity that the Jews ever claimed Isaiah was relevant to Jesus who was raised from the dead.

Please show me Jesus Christ in Isaiah 53.

I will show Jesus Christ in 1 Peter 1.

Quote:

13Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead....

Now, "Paul" made a similar claim about the resurrection.

1 Cor 17

Quote:

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

Well, look at gJohn.

The author claimed that EVEN the supposed disciples did NOT know of any Scripture about that Jesus would be raised from the dead.

Joh 20:9 -

Quote:

For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

What written source of antiquity claimed Jesus was raised from the dead on the THIRD day?

It was NOT Isaiah 53.

It was NOT gJohn.

BOTH authors of gLuke and the Pauline writers made the same FALSE claim and the Church claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.