mike_decock

Maybe he gained enough momentum in his ministry to go after the Jerusalem group and straighten them out, too . Paul's ego never fails to disgust me.

-Mike...

the_cave

There are some alternate explanations:

1) Paul had a revelation of Jesus Christ before he learned who Jesus the prophet had been.
2) It may not have been obvious that Jesus the prophet was more than a prophet
3) Some have suggested the revelation of the Resurrection of Jesus the prophet didn't come immediately, to everyone. It took a long time, and not everyone may have believed it. But in the meantime, they might have believed in a resurrected Christ.

rlogan

This has been an interesting thread of Late. Thank you Amaleq13 for the notes.

I think this "weak", "infirm", and "no reputation" business is key. I don't know how well the english translation captures the greek.

But is stands in such stark contrast to the man-God doing all those miracles.

The apologists go through the text matching up the "consistencies" between the synoptics and the epistles. A better metric would just be a side-by side comparison.

Amaleq13

Why should we assume Paul ever "learned" that Jesus was a prophet or a teacher while he lived? There is no evidence of this knowledge anywhere in his letters which were apparently all written well after his revelation experience.

There is no evidence that Paul considered Jesus to have been a prophet at all, let alone "more than a prophet". These are Gospel concepts not found in Paul's letters.

I agree that the evidence clearly suggests that belief in a Risen Christ preceded belief in Jesus as a living, preaching, miracle-working prophet. The question remains, however, how one could come to consider a living Jesus to have become the Risen Christ without knowing anything about him before the crucifixion. It is "almost" as if a belief in a human Jesus (or at least one connected to a specific point in history) was not even necessary for those early Christians.

Paul's pre-crucifixion Jesus lacks the power and reputation of the Gospel Jesus. I will concede, however, that Mark's introduction of the "messianic secret" makes his Gospel Jesus the closest fit to Paul's. If the powers were kept secret, then Paul's understanding was simply wrong. However, if we assume the Pillars at Jerusalem were original Disciples of the living Jesus, we must also assume that they decided to keep this information from Paul and that this conspiracy to keep him in the dark extended to everyone else who knew. I don't consider that a very convincing explanation.

What does seem convincing, IMHO, is the idea that Mark has created his narrative specifically to explain beliefs like Paul's. In fact, I think Mark adds to it by suggesting (via the baptism scene) that Jesus, himself, was not even aware of his identity as the Messiah until the divine identification. This seems consistent, as I've suggested elsewhere, with the beliefs attributed to Trypho in the dialogue with Justin. Trypho is portrayed as assuming the Messiah would be unknown, even to himself, until he was anointed by Elias reborn. I would be very interested in how far back such a messianic belief can be traced in Jewish tradition.

Amaleq13

You are very much welcome. I enjoy defending the mythicist position despite the need I perceive for more support (i.e. Carrier's review of Doherty: "heavenly spheres") but I would be just as interested in an historical theory that seems to fit all the evidence. Layman and Vinnie probably don't believe that but it is true.

mike_decock

Perhaps Mark is simply a conflation between Paul's resurrected Christ and a pre-Markan historical Jesus.

-Mike...

Amaleq13

What parts of Mark's Jesus would you consider to derive from the "real" person?

What about Q? I've always considered Mark an attempted merger of Q's behavior and Pauline theology. By "Q's behavior" I mean that a great deal of the text seems to describe how this group of prophets behaved. If an historical Jesus was their leader, this is how he told them to act. If Jesus is a myth, Mark takes that "behavior template" and describes Jesus as a Q prophet. If Jesus is historical, Mark still seems to know a very different Jesus from the one Paul preached so who the heck was Paul's Jesus?

mike_decock

I don't know enough about Q at this point to comment (most of my reading has been focused on Thomas, Gnostics and the development of Orthodoxy).

Does Q describe a historical Jesus? How early is Q? Is there anything about the resurrection in Q?

Yeshua was a common enough name in those days for the followers of different groups to merge the history of one with the theology of another a generation later.

-Mike...

Amaleq13

That depends.

Taken as a whole rather than considering layers of development, yes. He was the leader of a group of prophets who seemed to have been centered in rural Galilee. He taught them about the coming Kingdom of God and instructed them to go out and teach it too but only stay in places that accepted the teachings. He told them to perform healings to establish the authority of this gospel of the Kingdom. Part of the gospel was a call to change one's behavior. You were to love your enemies, forgive others, do unto others..., repent past behavior, have faith in God's power, and (most importantly) respect the Kingdom of God prophets by emulating them. He also warned them that they might be arrested or even killed but they were not to fear such things. They were to sell their belongings and travel without purse, knapsack, or sandals. He warned that families could be torn apart by this gospel including their own. The Kingdom of God was superior to Jewish Law but the Law remained unchanged.

Their enemies were those who sought "signs", those who failed to recognize "signs", and those who strict Law adherence over consideration of the people.

It is to this entire tradition that Paul seems totally oblivious.

Kirby's site gives 40-80ce. The range reflects the idea that it is a composite text.

No there isn't and ain't that a kick in the head? There is no mention of Jesus dying at all. I think Crossan points to some passage(s) as suggesting Jesus should be assumed dead but he also notes there is no reason to think the author(s) considered his death any different from that of any other prophet of the Kingdom. There also isn't anything explicitly identifying Jesus as the Messiah, either. The one potential suggestion is in a passage where Jesus promises his followers they'll get to rule over the 12 tribes if they stick by him.

Unfortunately, that seems even more credible given the meaning of Jesus' name (i.e. God's Salvation).

God's Savior Messiah = Jesus Christ

I say "unfortunately" because that means the answer would be nothing more than it was simply a coincidence that the leader of the Kingdom of God prophets was named that same as Paul's resurrected Messiah Savior. The rabid HJ proponents would LOVE that!

mike_decock

I have no problemse with a simple or coincidental answer. It does explain why we've got these radically different views which were pounded into the same figure by the proto-Orthodox and Orthodox Christians. It accounts for the theological evolution from GMk-GMt/GLk-GJn.

-Mike...