Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 09-17-2007, 08:49 AM

I posted the following:

BOCK: You are correct to say that Paul never says Jesus of Nazareth. But what does he say? He uses the term Jesus 206 times. He speaks about his crucifixion in 1 Corinthians 1-2, which clearly is a reference to an earthly Jesus.

JACOB: It is incorrect to use the reference to the crucifixion as evidence of historicity. A godess like Inanna was also believed to have been nailed on a tree yet she was not a historical person.
Using the term Jesus 206 times is evidence that the term Jesus has been used 206 times: it is not evidence of historicity. Does the use of the name Robin Hood 206 times prove that Robin Hood was a historical person? I think not. You need historical evidence to prove historicity, not word counts.

BOCK: He notes that he took on humanity in Philippians 2-11, which also is an indication of his life on earth.

JACOB: Phillipians never says he became a human being: it says he assumed human form - humans dont take human forms, now do they, Dr. Bock? Taking human form is a docetic statement that asserts that the entity in question is actually not human. This argues against historicity.

BOCK: He discusses whether he taught on a given topic (the abandonment of a spouse) in 1 Corinthians 7.

JACOB: He does not attribute the teaching to Jesus, but to the lord. Paul uses "the Lord" to mean God.

BOCK: In Galatians 4:4-5 he discusses when he was born.

JACOB: Born where and by who? Dionysus, who was also a saviour figure like Jesus was born by Semele. Does that mean he was a historical person?

BOCK: Your remarks fall into a common category where a topic is viewed as mentioned or not because particular terms are or are not present. There is no doubt Paul is discussing Jesus of Nazareth.

JACOB: You are importing gospel suppositions into Paul's letters, whih were written before the gospels. Assume that we dont have the gospels - assume we are reading Paul's letters in the mid sixties. Paul nowhere mentions that there was a "Jesus of Nazareth" anywhere in his letters. So please lets not introduce extraneous material into his epistles.

BOCK: I have not even mentioned the reports of Paul's vision that Acts presents as from him (which I am sure you would say Luke made up) even though it is a nice corroboration of what Paul says about his experience in Galatians 1.

JACOB: What point would you like to make regarding Paul's vision that would help your case?

BOCK: This Acts event the Acts Seminar (an extension of the Jesus Seminar and hardly a conservative group) rated as a quite likely historical event. When your remark forces a choice between a cosmic figure and a man it ignores the very combination he depicts in Philippians 2 or Galatians 4:4-5.

JACOB: I have addressed both of these passages above. If you have something to say, I would like to read it.

BOCK: Part of what allows a gospel message to come from Paul is that Jesus represents humanity in part because he is a real human person.

JACOB: This is what is at issue. You dont help your case by asserting it without adducing supporting evidence.

BOCK: By the way, none of this nullifies the key point was being made, which was the dating of these ideas from Paul. We are still in the mid-thirties for these thoughts, given Paul's experience of seeing the risen Jesus, an experience that so impacted him that he speaks of Jesus as he now is-- raised and exalted. Thus Paul has many references to Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christ.

JACOB: He may have a billion references. That is not at issue. What is of interest is whether any of those alleged references can be suffficient proof that a historical Jesus existed, or that Paul believed in a flesh-and-blood man as opposed to a cosmic figure. I invite you to present those that can hold up as evidence that a historical Jesus existed.

Amedeo · 09-17-2007, 09:09 AM

P.S. to # 10
How details can be forgotten!
Matthew 17:24ff. The temple tax collector came around and Simon was asked whether if his teacher, Jesus, pays the tax. Jesus asks him a rhetorical question, Does a king collect taxes from his sons or others? From others; the sons are exempt. But in order not to be offensive, Jesus sends Simon to go a fetch a four-drachma coin from a fish.

(This does not prove that the royal Jesus existed; it shows that Jesus recognized himself to be the son of David and, therefore, the legitimate king of the Judaeans.)

CONCLUSION: The Pauline Christology that makes Jesus the savior of mankind is null and void. The Gentiles were duped! Gentile Christianity is grounded on a big deception by Paul and the other apostles to the Gentiles (for sectarian reasons which are hidden from the New Testament).

I have already alluded to some reasons in some of my posts, but I don't want to open a can of worms here. My conclusion is that, as for Christians, it does not matter whether a Jesus ever existed or not. As for the Judeans, there seem to be no independent documents that between 6 and 70 A.D. there ever was a sect that aimed at establishing a monarchy in Judea; actually the Gospels are the documents that provide the clues that there was such a sect, which presupposes that there was a real royal Jesus.

It may be worth noticing that when John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, was decapitated, Jesus was informed. The Gospel relates that Herod Antipas, of Galilee, was denounced by the Baptist for having married his brother's widow, but it does not explain why the dancer should have asked, as a reward, for John's head. At any rate, Herod is reported commenting that Jesus is "the resurrected Baptist." Was he alluding to the royal ambitions of John and of Jesus -- relatives and apocalyptic fanatics from the House of David?

Toto · 09-17-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

I don't understand how Paul saying that Jesus was crucified proves that he believed Jesus was a real person.

One could just as easily say that Prometheus was tied to a rock and had a bird of prey eat out his liver. Does anyone think that means Prometheus was a real person who lived on the earth?

The truth is that fictional and mythological figures are always spoken of in real-life terms simply because that is the only way we can truly identify with them.

Now if Paul had said Jesus was crucified on a hill called Golgotha in the city of Jerusalem at the time of Pontius Pilate, THEN we might have something meaningful to talk about.

B responds to me:

Quote:

This is an amazing response. Who else would it be given the response of Jews and believers in the disputes that centered around Jesus of Nazaareth, not to mention Paul's association with Peter, James, and others who were with Jesus? How can Paul speak of we preach "Jesus crucified" if he does not have a historical crucifixion in view of a Jesus who both he and his disputants know the identity of? The "Lord" being discussed in 1 Corinthians is the Lord Jesus Chrsit who is also said to take on flesh (as 1 Cor 1 also shows). If not Jesus of Nazareth, then who else? Remember the debates with Jews that we know about through interaction we see in figures like Justin Martyr or the Talmud (and their agreement that the charge against Jesus included the claim he was a sorcerer-deceiver points also to a known historical figure).

The error is like one I use in my class. Let me illustrate. What is the following sentence about? "The Cowboys are going to the frozen tundra to melt the cheeseheads" If you say football, you are right, but the word football is not there. You can refer to someone or somethign without having a specific term present. How would one know in the case of my illustration? It is by the combination of other features that point in that direction. Yes, the word Nazareth is not in Paul, but there is no other credible candidate for who he is discussing than a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Who else could it be? Bock can't get out of his evangelical mind frame enough to see the possibilities.

Brian63 · 09-17-2007, 09:15 AM

I posted a quick response linking back to this thread.

Brian

ETA: He also has a couple of posts about about Josephus and the TF:

The Jesus Puzzle, Point 2- The Josephus Citation about Jesus Sept 15

and

The Debated Josephus Text- Antiquities 18.63-64 Sept 15

Amedeo · 09-17-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

P.S. to # 10
How details can be forgotten!
Matthew 17:24ff. The temple tax collector came around and Simon was asked whether if his teacher, Jesus, pays the tax. Jesus asks him a rhetorical question, Does a king collect taxes from his sons or others? From others; the sons are exempt. But in order not to be offensive, Jesus sends Simon to go a fetch a four-drachma coin from a fish.

(This does not prove that the royal Jesus existed; it shows that Jesus recognized himself to be the son of David and, therefore, the legitimate king of the Judaeans.)

CONCLUSION: The Pauline Christology that makes Jesus the savior of mankind is null and void. The Gentiles were duped! Gentile Christianity is grounded on a big deception by Paul and the other apostles to the Gentiles (for sectarian reasons which are hidden from the New Testament).

I have already alluded to some reasons in some of my posts, but I don't want to open a can of worms here. My conclusion is that, as for Christians, it does not matter whether a Jesus ever existed or not. As for the Judeans, there seem to be no independent documents that between 6 and 70 A.D. there ever was a sect that aimed at establishing a monarchy in Judea; actually the Gospels are the documents that provide the clues that there was such a sect, which presupposes that there was a real royal Jesus.

It may be worth noticing that when John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, was decapitated, Jesus was informed. The Gospel relates that Herod Antipas, of Galilee, was denounced by the Baptist for having married his brother's widow, but it does not explain why the dancer should have asked, as a reward, for John's head. At any rate, Herod is reported commenting that Jesus is "the resurrected Baptist." Was he alluding to the royal ambitions of John and of Jesus -- relatives and apocalyptic fanatics from the House of David?

Everything falls logically into place... As I am re-reading Matthew [27] I find that when Jesus was brought before Pilate, the first question the obviously informed Pilate asked was, Are you the king of the Jews [Judaeans]? And Jesus replied, Yes, it is as you say.

And the one who was crucified was "Jesus of Nazareth, KING OF THE JUDAEANS" (or, in Matt. 27:37 -- THIS IS JESUS, KING OF THE JUDAEANS).

Amen.

Ted Hoffman · 09-19-2007, 02:15 AM

I added this:

NICK: I'd just comment that Paul doesn't go into detail concerning the historicity of Jesus because it was already assumed by his audience. Paul was not a historian or an apologist in our modern conception of the term-

JACOB: Who were his audience? Demonstrate that they assumed that Jesus existed. This is an unsupported assumption you are making. Further, explain why Paul never attributes any saying or teaching to Jesus. And at the same, why is it that Paul never quotes Jesus as in "Jesus said..." Do you want us to believe that Paul never found anything Jesus taught on earth to be useful as a source of teaching to his audience? Explain please.

NICK: Oh, and I'd also point out that 90% of Paul's use of the title 'kyrios' (lord) is in reference to Jesus -- it would be special pleading to suggest that Paul could possibly be speaking of 'the Lord God' [the Father] when he mentions the Lord who was crucified. The context of 1Corinthians is far from ambiguous on the referent.

JACOB: I knew kurios/kyrios would come up. Let me offer an explanation I got from someone else, who has a better knowledge of Greek than myself:
The LXX Greek uses an absolute reference kurios to refer to God, but kurios can refer to other figures as well, though not in the absolute. Now, the three different uses of kurios are:

1) as a title, eg the lord Jesus Christ (another example is in the expression "our lord" );
2) use in defining statements such as "Jesus is lord"; and
3) use as a complete reference to an entity, "the lord said..."

No 3 above is always used by the LXX to refer to God.

We find very few examples of Paul's use of #3 that can be guaranteed to refer to Jesus. In two of those cases we find other things to question the originality of the surrounding material, eg we get one of the very few gospel-like pericopes, or we get a phrase like "crucified the Lord of glory" when "glory" is almost exclusively an attribute of the father.
The argument leads to using those few examples where "the Lord" refers to Jesus as indicating later editing. See Robert Price's article on 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation at http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

BOCK: Texts and people have contxts beyond the oiterary remains they leave whcih give contet to what they are saying. This is historical evidence. We know that Paul interacted with Peter and James and other believers. We know what they beleived about Jesus. We know they agreed on these points.

JACOB: We dont know that they (the Jerusalem Pillars) believed in a historical Jesus. We dont know who Kephas (Peter) - a nickname - referred to. And we dont know that James (brother of the Lord) was a disciple of Jesus, or believed in a HJ. You are importing gospel suppositions into the texts again. Assume that you are reading Pauline epistles without the gospels next to you and show us what information about a historical Jesus you can extract from them. What would those names (Cephas et al) mean to you? What Paul says they agreed on is that there was a resurrected Christ. Nothing else. As I have stated, you neednt be a historical person to die and resurrect. gods like Inanna died and rose from the dead. So did Asclepius. That is what devotees believe and historicity is not necessary for that.

BOCK: So the letters of Paul I cited belong to a context of relationships that we know about from Paul's own testimony corroborated by others.

JACOB: Paul says Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. What about Judas? Did he not die shortly after Jesus' alleged death? Who were the twelve if Cephas was not one of them? Is that what you call Corroboration?
Paul says that demons(princes of this world) killed Jesus, not Pilate and not the High Priest. Is that Corroboration?
Pauline epistles portray Paul as clashing with enthusiasts and Judaizers (in Galatians and Romans for example) while Luke portrays him in Acts as still a
Pharisee. Is this corroboration? Gunther Bornkamm, in his book, Paul shows several Acts-Paul colissions. The orthodoxy merely tried to appropriate Paul to serve their own theological agenda.

BOCK: It is one thng to say a text is able linguistically to mean something and to cite a parallel, which is essentially what you have done. It is another to place a text in its historical-cultural context and then read it. Paul was Jewish and believed in a deliverer that God would bring to the earth.

JACOB: Hellenistic culture influenced him so we cannot cage his beliefs in a Jewish mindset. Philo, his contemporary, also spoke of the heavenly man, the first Adam. As such, heavenly beings were not alien to Hellenized Jews. The platonic culture entailed envisioning the universe as organized in layers. Hence Paul speaks of the sixth heaven. In any case, as per Jewish beliefs, was the messiah supposed to die? was he supposed to be a cosmic saviour or a political/millitary leader like Joshua? Explain that.

BOCK: Where do we see him appeal directly to such sources in contrast to the Hebrew Scriptures he does appeal to about Jesus?

JACOB: Paul relies on revelations in additions to Hebrew Scriptures as a source of his knowledge. Are you disputing that the lord revealed things to Paul?

BOCK: As for Paul's statement in Philippians 2, it is decidedly not docetic becasue Paul beleives Jesus died a real death (1 Cor 15:3-5). A docetist believes Jesus only appeared to die.

JACOB: Paul supports his belief in the alleged death of Christ using the Old Testament (the scriptures), and not eyewitnesses to the alleged life or death of Jesus. Do the Old Testament scriptures talk about the death of Jesus? No. And we know Paul never witnessed the death of Jesus. Paul also said he died and resurrected with Jesus. Therefore how can you claim that this was a real death?
Please explain.

BOCK: In addition, Jesus' ability to represent humanity in his theology requires Jesus' humanity (Rom 3:20-5:24).

JACOB: Read about structural Homology in Gerd Theissen and Anette Mertz's book. One could act as an analogue or a heavenly counterpart without being on earth.

BOCK: Ephesians 2:15 can be added to this list - nullifying the commandments of the law in his flesh (but some do not connect this letter to Paul as I do).

JACOB: Ephesians is Deutero Pauline. Even mainstream NT scholars dont regard it as authentic. See Gunther Bornkamm's Paul for example.

BOCK: As for Paul's vision, we are looking at his claim he had a direct revelation from Jesus, which led to his conversion. Now he had to know enough about Jesus and the message tied to him to convert

JACOB: It doesnt matter. Even you know about Jesus but that does not make you a source for historical information about Jesus. Whatever Paul knew about Jesus was from scriptures and revelation according to him. At best, he learnt about Jesus from Christians. That does not prove that a historical Jesus existed.

Amedeo · 09-22-2007, 05:52 PM

And another thing [that I mentioned elsewhere]:

P.S. to # 15 -- Paul's theory of universal salvation is all wet also because, if Christ had come to atone for man's sins (or original sin), then he wanted to undergo death and should have been glad to accomplish his mission by being crucified.

But what does the crucified Christ do? HE COMPLAINS TO GOD: "Eli, Eli, why have you FORSAKEN me?"

He saw himself as forsaken by his God; he was not thanking one for having chosen him to save mankind or even Israel.

The Pauline salvationism contradicts the Gospel Christ.

And Paul continues:... If Christ had not risen, our faith would be in vain. Christ conquered death, etc. etc.

But wait a moment! If Christ's death was not final and irreversible, then it is a temporary death. It was like going into a coma from the torture. There was no human SACRIFICE. The resurrection invalidates the redeeming value of the sacrifice. Paul is twice wrong, and thus ends Gentilistic Christianity.

The Gentiles were duped by the Israelitic preachers of a failed king -- under the guise of a savior. The pompous American evangelists and fundamentalists, who are bent on bringing America on its knees, are the last scrap of a monumental error.

youngalexander · 09-23-2007, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

He saw himself as forsaken by his God; he was not thanking one for having chosen him to save mankind or even Israel.

But wait a moment! If Christ's death was not final and irreversible, then it is a temporary death. It was like going into a coma from the torture. There was no human SACRIFICE. The resurrection invalidates the redeeming value of the sacrifice. Paul is twice wrong.

Yup!
However, you left out the bit about it also being morally repugnant.

This blog of Bock is quite interesting. I note the comments in the "analogy" thread, but he does seem genuinely bemused by the idea that Paul might be 'preaching another jesus'.

wordy · 09-23-2007, 03:30 AM

Maybe me very OT. Is it not saddening that we atheists are so eager to debate the Historical Jesus when it is the Jesus within the believer that is the motivational force that makes religious behavior work for them.

The only reason or explanation I come to think of is that the lack of support for the HJ is so hard to find. It is much more easy to go that route instead of finding ways to address the inner Jesus.

But I think it is unfortunate and a waist of time to talk of a HJ. Not even the believers care much about him. they care about the living Jesus they feel in their hearts that is mirrored in their brain.

angelo · 09-23-2007, 03:56 AM

What is the puzzle ? Christianity and therefore Jesus, stands or falls on the miracle stories of the gospels. Someone said; without the miracles and ressurection, following christianity is futile. [or words to that effect]

Well, we all know that miracles are against the working of natural laws.
And so far, in the history of this planet, there has never ever being a supernatural happening that could not be explained by natural means.

So what is the mystery ? :huh:

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

09-17-2007, 08:49 AM	#11
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	I posted the following: BOCK: You are correct to say that Paul never says Jesus of Nazareth. But what does he say? He uses the term Jesus 206 times. He speaks about his crucifixion in 1 Corinthians 1-2, which clearly is a reference to an earthly Jesus. JACOB: It is incorrect to use the reference to the crucifixion as evidence of historicity. A godess like Inanna was also believed to have been nailed on a tree yet she was not a historical person. Using the term Jesus 206 times is evidence that the term Jesus has been used 206 times: it is not evidence of historicity. Does the use of the name Robin Hood 206 times prove that Robin Hood was a historical person? I think not. You need historical evidence to prove historicity, not word counts. BOCK: He notes that he took on humanity in Philippians 2-11, which also is an indication of his life on earth. JACOB: Phillipians never says he became a human being: it says he assumed human form - humans dont take human forms, now do they, Dr. Bock? Taking human form is a docetic statement that asserts that the entity in question is actually not human. This argues against historicity. BOCK: He discusses whether he taught on a given topic (the abandonment of a spouse) in 1 Corinthians 7. JACOB: He does not attribute the teaching to Jesus, but to the lord. Paul uses "the Lord" to mean God. BOCK: In Galatians 4:4-5 he discusses when he was born. JACOB: Born where and by who? Dionysus, who was also a saviour figure like Jesus was born by Semele. Does that mean he was a historical person? BOCK: Your remarks fall into a common category where a topic is viewed as mentioned or not because particular terms are or are not present. There is no doubt Paul is discussing Jesus of Nazareth. JACOB: You are importing gospel suppositions into Paul's letters, whih were written before the gospels. Assume that we dont have the gospels - assume we are reading Paul's letters in the mid sixties. Paul nowhere mentions that there was a "Jesus of Nazareth" anywhere in his letters. So please lets not introduce extraneous material into his epistles. BOCK: I have not even mentioned the reports of Paul's vision that Acts presents as from him (which I am sure you would say Luke made up) even though it is a nice corroboration of what Paul says about his experience in Galatians 1. JACOB: What point would you like to make regarding Paul's vision that would help your case? BOCK: This Acts event the Acts Seminar (an extension of the Jesus Seminar and hardly a conservative group) rated as a quite likely historical event. When your remark forces a choice between a cosmic figure and a man it ignores the very combination he depicts in Philippians 2 or Galatians 4:4-5. JACOB: I have addressed both of these passages above. If you have something to say, I would like to read it. BOCK: Part of what allows a gospel message to come from Paul is that Jesus represents humanity in part because he is a real human person. JACOB: This is what is at issue. You dont help your case by asserting it without adducing supporting evidence. BOCK: By the way, none of this nullifies the key point was being made, which was the dating of these ideas from Paul. We are still in the mid-thirties for these thoughts, given Paul's experience of seeing the risen Jesus, an experience that so impacted him that he speaks of Jesus as he now is-- raised and exalted. Thus Paul has many references to Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christ. JACOB: He may have a billion references. That is not at issue. What is of interest is whether any of those alleged references can be suffficient proof that a historical Jesus existed, or that Paul believed in a flesh-and-blood man as opposed to a cosmic figure. I invite you to present those that can hold up as evidence that a historical Jesus existed.

09-17-2007, 09:09 AM	#12
Amedeo Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: US Citizen (edited) Posts: 1,948	P.S. to # 10 How details can be forgotten! Matthew 17:24ff. The temple tax collector came around and Simon was asked whether if his teacher, Jesus, pays the tax. Jesus asks him a rhetorical question, Does a king collect taxes from his sons or others? From others; the sons are exempt. But in order not to be offensive, Jesus sends Simon to go a fetch a four-drachma coin from a fish. (This does not prove that the royal Jesus existed; it shows that Jesus recognized himself to be the son of David and, therefore, the legitimate king of the Judaeans.) CONCLUSION: The Pauline Christology that makes Jesus the savior of mankind is null and void. The Gentiles were duped! Gentile Christianity is grounded on a big deception by Paul and the other apostles to the Gentiles (for sectarian reasons which are hidden from the New Testament). I have already alluded to some reasons in some of my posts, but I don't want to open a can of worms here. My conclusion is that, as for Christians, it does not matter whether a Jesus ever existed or not. As for the Judeans, there seem to be no independent documents that between 6 and 70 A.D. there ever was a sect that aimed at establishing a monarchy in Judea; actually the Gospels are the documents that provide the clues that there was such a sect, which presupposes that there was a real royal Jesus. It may be worth noticing that when John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, was decapitated, Jesus was informed. The Gospel relates that Herod Antipas, of Galilee, was denounced by the Baptist for having married his brother's widow, but it does not explain why the dancer should have asked, as a reward, for John's head. At any rate, Herod is reported commenting that Jesus is "the resurrected Baptist." Was he alluding to the royal ambitions of John and of Jesus -- relatives and apocalyptic fanatics from the House of David?

09-17-2007, 09:15 AM	#14
Brian63 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: My own little fantasy world Posts: 8,911	I posted a quick response linking back to this thread. Brian ETA: He also has a couple of posts about about Josephus and the TF: The Jesus Puzzle, Point 2- The Josephus Citation about Jesus Sept 15 and The Debated Josephus Text- Antiquities 18.63-64 Sept 15

09-19-2007, 02:15 AM	#16
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	I added this: NICK: I'd just comment that Paul doesn't go into detail concerning the historicity of Jesus because it was already assumed by his audience. Paul was not a historian or an apologist in our modern conception of the term- JACOB: Who were his audience? Demonstrate that they assumed that Jesus existed. This is an unsupported assumption you are making. Further, explain why Paul never attributes any saying or teaching to Jesus. And at the same, why is it that Paul never quotes Jesus as in "Jesus said..." Do you want us to believe that Paul never found anything Jesus taught on earth to be useful as a source of teaching to his audience? Explain please. NICK: Oh, and I'd also point out that 90% of Paul's use of the title 'kyrios' (lord) is in reference to Jesus -- it would be special pleading to suggest that Paul could possibly be speaking of 'the Lord God' [the Father] when he mentions the Lord who was crucified. The context of 1Corinthians is far from ambiguous on the referent. JACOB: I knew kurios/kyrios would come up. Let me offer an explanation I got from someone else, who has a better knowledge of Greek than myself: The LXX Greek uses an absolute reference kurios to refer to God, but kurios can refer to other figures as well, though not in the absolute. Now, the three different uses of kurios are: 1) as a title, eg the lord Jesus Christ (another example is in the expression "our lord" ); 2) use in defining statements such as "Jesus is lord"; and 3) use as a complete reference to an entity, "the lord said..." No 3 above is always used by the LXX to refer to God. We find very few examples of Paul's use of #3 that can be guaranteed to refer to Jesus. In two of those cases we find other things to question the originality of the surrounding material, eg we get one of the very few gospel-like pericopes, or we get a phrase like "crucified the Lord of glory" when "glory" is almost exclusively an attribute of the father. The argument leads to using those few examples where "the Lord" refers to Jesus as indicating later editing. See Robert Price's article on 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation at http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html BOCK: Texts and people have contxts beyond the oiterary remains they leave whcih give contet to what they are saying. This is historical evidence. We know that Paul interacted with Peter and James and other believers. We know what they beleived about Jesus. We know they agreed on these points. JACOB: We dont know that they (the Jerusalem Pillars) believed in a historical Jesus. We dont know who Kephas (Peter) - a nickname - referred to. And we dont know that James (brother of the Lord) was a disciple of Jesus, or believed in a HJ. You are importing gospel suppositions into the texts again. Assume that you are reading Pauline epistles without the gospels next to you and show us what information about a historical Jesus you can extract from them. What would those names (Cephas et al) mean to you? What Paul says they agreed on is that there was a resurrected Christ. Nothing else. As I have stated, you neednt be a historical person to die and resurrect. gods like Inanna died and rose from the dead. So did Asclepius. That is what devotees believe and historicity is not necessary for that. BOCK: So the letters of Paul I cited belong to a context of relationships that we know about from Paul's own testimony corroborated by others. JACOB: Paul says Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. What about Judas? Did he not die shortly after Jesus' alleged death? Who were the twelve if Cephas was not one of them? Is that what you call Corroboration? Paul says that demons(princes of this world) killed Jesus, not Pilate and not the High Priest. Is that Corroboration? Pauline epistles portray Paul as clashing with enthusiasts and Judaizers (in Galatians and Romans for example) while Luke portrays him in Acts as still a Pharisee. Is this corroboration? Gunther Bornkamm, in his book, Paul shows several Acts-Paul colissions. The orthodoxy merely tried to appropriate Paul to serve their own theological agenda. BOCK: It is one thng to say a text is able linguistically to mean something and to cite a parallel, which is essentially what you have done. It is another to place a text in its historical-cultural context and then read it. Paul was Jewish and believed in a deliverer that God would bring to the earth. JACOB: Hellenistic culture influenced him so we cannot cage his beliefs in a Jewish mindset. Philo, his contemporary, also spoke of the heavenly man, the first Adam. As such, heavenly beings were not alien to Hellenized Jews. The platonic culture entailed envisioning the universe as organized in layers. Hence Paul speaks of the sixth heaven. In any case, as per Jewish beliefs, was the messiah supposed to die? was he supposed to be a cosmic saviour or a political/millitary leader like Joshua? Explain that. BOCK: Where do we see him appeal directly to such sources in contrast to the Hebrew Scriptures he does appeal to about Jesus? JACOB: Paul relies on revelations in additions to Hebrew Scriptures as a source of his knowledge. Are you disputing that the lord revealed things to Paul? BOCK: As for Paul's statement in Philippians 2, it is decidedly not docetic becasue Paul beleives Jesus died a real death (1 Cor 15:3-5). A docetist believes Jesus only appeared to die. JACOB: Paul supports his belief in the alleged death of Christ using the Old Testament (the scriptures), and not eyewitnesses to the alleged life or death of Jesus. Do the Old Testament scriptures talk about the death of Jesus? No. And we know Paul never witnessed the death of Jesus. Paul also said he died and resurrected with Jesus. Therefore how can you claim that this was a real death? Please explain. BOCK: In addition, Jesus' ability to represent humanity in his theology requires Jesus' humanity (Rom 3:20-5:24). JACOB: Read about structural Homology in Gerd Theissen and Anette Mertz's book. One could act as an analogue or a heavenly counterpart without being on earth. BOCK: Ephesians 2:15 can be added to this list - nullifying the commandments of the law in his flesh (but some do not connect this letter to Paul as I do). JACOB: Ephesians is Deutero Pauline. Even mainstream NT scholars dont regard it as authentic. See Gunther Bornkamm's Paul for example. BOCK: As for Paul's vision, we are looking at his claim he had a direct revelation from Jesus, which led to his conversion. Now he had to know enough about Jesus and the message tied to him to convert JACOB: It doesnt matter. Even you know about Jesus but that does not make you a source for historical information about Jesus. Whatever Paul knew about Jesus was from scriptures and revelation according to him. At best, he learnt about Jesus from Christians. That does not prove that a historical Jesus existed.

09-22-2007, 05:52 PM	#17
Amedeo Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: US Citizen (edited) Posts: 1,948	And another thing [that I mentioned elsewhere]: P.S. to # 15 -- Paul's theory of universal salvation is all wet also because, if Christ had come to atone for man's sins (or original sin), then he wanted to undergo death and should have been glad to accomplish his mission by being crucified. But what does the crucified Christ do? HE COMPLAINS TO GOD: "Eli, Eli, why have you FORSAKEN me?" He saw himself as forsaken by his God; he was not thanking one for having chosen him to save mankind or even Israel. The Pauline salvationism contradicts the Gospel Christ. And Paul continues:... If Christ had not risen, our faith would be in vain. Christ conquered death, etc. etc. But wait a moment! If Christ's death was not final and irreversible, then it is a temporary death. It was like going into a coma from the torture. There was no human SACRIFICE. The resurrection invalidates the redeeming value of the sacrifice. Paul is twice wrong, and thus ends Gentilistic Christianity. The Gentiles were duped by the Israelitic preachers of a failed king -- under the guise of a savior. The pompous American evangelists and fundamentalists, who are bent on bringing America on its knees, are the last scrap of a monumental error.

09-23-2007, 03:30 AM	#19
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	Maybe me very OT. Is it not saddening that we atheists are so eager to debate the Historical Jesus when it is the Jesus within the believer that is the motivational force that makes religious behavior work for them. The only reason or explanation I come to think of is that the lack of support for the HJ is so hard to find. It is much more easy to go that route instead of finding ways to address the inner Jesus. But I think it is unfortunate and a waist of time to talk of a HJ. Not even the believers care much about him. they care about the living Jesus they feel in their hearts that is mirrored in their brain.

09-23-2007, 03:56 AM	#20
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	What is the puzzle ? Christianity and therefore Jesus, stands or falls on the miracle stories of the gospels. Someone said; without the miracles and ressurection, following christianity is futile. [or words to that effect] Well, we all know that miracles are against the working of natural laws. And so far, in the history of this planet, there has never ever being a supernatural happening that could not be explained by natural means. So what is the mystery ? :huh:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.