Originally Posted by archibald

1. Personally, I'm not trying to figure out, at this point, whether Jesus was mythical or real, only whether Paul seems to be describing him (and by extension, thinking of him) as earthly, or in an upper realm. Robin Hood may not have existed, but he wasn't concieved of as being sub-lunar, if you see my point of enquiry.

In that sense, and not relying on one piece of text, but looking at the overall pattern, we have:

(a) Numerous 'earthly-seeming' references (some more ambiguous than others)

(b) No clear references to Jesus being in an upper realm (pre or during crucifixion), which strikes me as not very 'world of myth'.

(c) Scriptures being repeatedly cited as central precedents, when said scriptures seem also to describe a figure who came to earth.

(d) The seeming temporal proximity between Paul's 'eschatological figure' and the apparently imminent eschatological events. This would seem to suggest that if he was writing about such a figure, it might be more likely to have been a recent one, which 'recentness' would be unusual for myth figures. Alternately, there could have been a very long or undetermined time gap between the prophecy and its fulfilment, but this again seems a more unusual combination for 'end of the world is nigh' type ideas. Another possibility which has been floated is that events in an upper realm were deemed timeless, but I'm having difficulty seeing this as the best option. Would a timeless sacrifice be likely to have been seen as having an immediate (or imminent) effect ?

(e) The whole idea seems to be that the resurrection is meant as some sort of model for earthlings to base hopeful anticipations on, in relation to their bodies. It doesn't seem such a convincing template if a ghostie just moved about between upper levels, especially if they were timeless. What would fit better, and be more of a potent reason for preaching, is a sort of 'if he could do it, so can you' argument, which does in fact appear to be the suggestion put to followers.

I am having trouble adding these up (and I do think they should be seen as a set, not individually) to come to a conclusion that Paul was setting J. in an upper realm, especially a timeless one, even though it is possible.

I might add a related item (f) to that list, in that Paul does not seem to be doing an upper-realm myth, since there is not very much myth narrative, aka myth bio, which, as I see it, puts any 'odd silence' into a different light, in that it seems to apply equally to earthly or sublunar explanations, thereby rendering it not so significant as an indicator for one or the other.

Add to all of that the fact that Paul is not the only account. There is 'Q', though I note that Earl D. now says he has clearly demonstrated that there was no historical figure involved (and wonder whether this is as conclusive as he says) and that quite soon after, many other writers appear to have adopted an HJ view. I do not yet know of any texts from any group which clearly show anyone thought of him as non-earthly. So not only would a relatively fast (ie decades only) switch to 'earthly' have been necessary (and how many precedents for this sort of thing are there in history?) but there is no evidence of anybody having made it. Not conclusive either, I know, but does seem to involve a few extra hoops to be jumped through.

2. While I take your point about how much better it would have been if Paul had actually said that someone he had met had met and spoken with Jesus, (a) the absence of this may not be particularly indicative one way or the other and (b) would it make things so much clearer? I'm thinking that if you went to a certain Pacific Island, you might have been able to speak to someone who could have said that about John Frum.

A lot of this does hinge on what Paul originally said, and in other threads I am reading of things which might make any assumptions on this front a bit more murky, but as yet, I can't see how it would have been likely to change the overall pattern, without a complete rewrite or a transformation so radical that the original would have been almost unrecognizable. Which of course is not impossible either, and I think there is a thread here somewhere which alleges just that hypothesis. :]

Originally Posted by archibald

That is a very interesting comment about 'how most religions start', and I don't think it's off the mark. And could be linked, as a general observation, back to the 'powers of imagination' just above. One might even add a tendency to see ghosts. :]

Having said that, I'm not sure we would concur on what the 'evidence' is in this particular case. The text strongly suggests that this was not, in fact, the 'start'. Almost all the other evidence suggests that it was not the start. I think that is hard to get around. It can be debated, obviously, but I'm not convinced that it doesn't involve a longer series of unevidenced hoops or a more unusual set of circumstances than 'there were some followers before Paul'. It's not certain, of course.

The other thing is that there is a difference between a mystical experience of God and seeing the ghost of a prophet.

Originally Posted by archibald

But...but....

Why stop at what he says about the vision? Sure, it's a vision, but who is it a vision of? Someone that no one else had been following, who hadn't died before appearing as a ghost to him? If you are willing to take your lead from the texts, why stop there? Why not consider that Paul says he persecuted the prior followers, then joined their cult? What to do with my list of items (a) to (f) etc?

The pattern is there in almost every epistle. Start with an impartial reading of the first three verses of Romans for example. The 'prophesies' are fulfilled. (What prophecies? Did the prophecies not say someone would come to earth?). Resurrection of the dead. What dead? Us? What bloomin' use to us farties is a mythical ghost being raised from one upper level to another upper level? In order to see it as relevant, we need someone who demonstrated the principle that we could die and rise.

You are holding out for this 'causal chain', and I'm not sure it's even necessary, and only gets back to what you/we think Paul 'should' have included. I think Gakuseidon has covered this with examples of other texts which don't do bio either. And as I keep saying, there's damn all bio, period, including mythical narrative.

By the way, I think the idea that the previous followers were also basing everything off similar visions adds complication, as compared to the alternative. One guy having a mystical experience is one thing, but a whole bunch having corresponding ones? Sure, it's possible. But it's totally speculative. And has left no evidence. Where's the mystical cult? And there's the switch to 'earthly' only decades later, as far as we can tell. All sounds like a pretty rare set of explanations.

Some crummy prophet attracts followers (followers do tend to follow actual prophets). Prophet dies (not uncommon). Followers linger on (happens all the time in cults). Some guy has a vision of a dead guy's ghost (happens all the time).

Incidentally, I'm not totally convinced the others saw a similar vision before Paul. I'm developing an open mind on that one. :]

Originally Posted by archibald

Sure. He got stuff from a vision. But the reasons for not stopping there are numerous. And they're in the remainder of the texts. There's plenty enough to suggest he didn't 'start the religion with his vision'. He says so.

Now, I grant you, we may not be reading the original words of Paul, and then we move to the rewrite scenario. But that's a different issue.

Pesonally, I would consider this the best alternative option. Reading the texts as they are, it's clear he's conceptually referring to someone who was once earthly before he died and Paul saw his ghost, detailed bio or no detailed bio.

Originally Posted by archibald

I have been revisiting certain passages, to honestly try to see them as referring to non-earthly, and it's a struggle.

Here, for example:


1 Corinthians 2:7-9

King James Version (KJV)


'7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.'

This links to my question (which nobody answered) about why Jesus was crucified. I've wondered, if he had descended into a lower realm, what did he do to confuse or annoy the residents? It doesn't appear to be explained. What sort of myth is that? It's as if......heresy alert.......the premise of the letters is that a crucifixion has already happened! Imagine that.

The only brief explanation as to reasons offered might be in the above verse, where 'they' hadn't known his 'secret'. Is that it? Is that the lot? But what secret message could he have brought to the sublunar realm that could have been so notable and controversial?

Surely there is a giant clue in verse 9. The 'secret' (whatever it was, and it's not hard to guess, since it's clarified in v9 as 'the things which God hath prepared for them that love him') from God has not entered into the heart of..........man. That's the 'them' in 'the things which God hath prepared for them'. Not the heart of wispy sublunar entities. Us. Does it make sense to say that inhabitants of an upper realm crucified him because they did not understand a message that was not directed at them, but at humans? Does Paul's God send secret messages to demons? Why would a God of the humans be addressing messages to upper realm entities?

Furthermore, what could his message mean to such supposed entities? That they could die and rise? Surely again, that's meant to be us, the people Paul is writing to.

On the face of it, there seems no strong reason, other than a tenuous quote mine out of context, to try to get archontes to mean non-earthly.

I have tried the same thing with a number of other verses, in their contexts. Try as I might, it seems almost obtuse to think that there is an upper realm myth going on. Can nobody see that whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not, the text is, in fact, littered from end to end with earthly/human references?

As for the text having been so reworked that it's unrecognizeable, I'm still open to that as a possibility, but it would have required a heck of a lot of revamping, IMO. And not just revamping to recongfigure Paul into a Catholic pigeon-hole. To get Paul to be doing a non-earthly myth figure, it would have to be something much more than that. And why would anybody revamp to achieve that? It's not as if there's much evidence of a 'non-earthly Jesus' heretic cult to counter in the first place.

Originally Posted by archibald

To add a thought:

The text above says rulers of THIS world. Greek 'toutou'. Sounds very like the one that in Romans 12:2, apparently using the same words, Aioni touto, he asks his (human) readers 'not to be conformed to'.

Now, how is it not likely that 'this' refers to the one he and his readers share? The one the oh-so important prophecies seemed to be about?


I'm taking alternative interpretations now. :]

Originally Posted by archibald

Thanks Toto. My bad. Yes, I have been in threads where that has been discussed. I don't see it radically affecting my reading of the passage above (1 Cor 2:7-9). I think I badly worded my comment about archontes, having previously agreed and understood that it was ambiguous (though personally I don't see enough reason to not opt for earthly rulers or at a pinch earthly rulers under the influence of evil demons). I should have said, 'to try get the events to be non-earthly'.

Incidentally, I see that 'article' claims Doherty agrees that Philippans 2:6-7 is a pre-Pauline hymn? That seems odd, since it contains a reference to Jesus being made in the likeness of humans. Not only is there (as ever) no reason to think this means 'humanlike but in an upper realm', but, more interestingly, if it's pre-Pauline, what does it do to the arguments of those who say Paul was the originator of the religion, and that there were no followers before him already?

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Here Paul seems to be saying that Christ came from the Israelites. I can't think of any reading that might be as plausible for someone described as "seed of David" and "seed of Abraham [who is to come]":

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

What's your alternative reading for the passage?

Originally Posted by archibald

Apologies for the walls of text. Really.

It's just the recent stuff from the other thread where I was quite correctly reminded it was off topic.

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Hello, and those primary and contemporary sources are?