Gamera

I don't think this is that problematic. Jesus seems to be saying (and does elsewhere) that he is the messiah (in the special sense that he understood the term), and that his life, death and resurrection are part of an arc of Jewish history stretching back to Abraham. In that arc a new kingdom will be established in which justice, peace, etc. will reign. Whether that kingdom is meant metaphorically or not, I won't hazard a guess, but the point is, he sees the "good news" as an histocial process, a story, in which he plays a role.

Gamera

It identifies that it has to do with the biography of Jesus since Paul point the the gospel involves this guy who is a descendant of David, placing the gospel in history.

That's because you miss Paul's radical point -- through this narrative, through the acceptance of this narrative, we are saved, claims Paul. You don't have to agree with him. But that's his radical point. It isn't even Jesus that saves (he's gone), it's the acceptance of the narrative about him (and his love) that save us. He says it pretty explicitly:

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek

I just don't think you have mused on the radical nature of Paul's claims and think he is making credal or theological arguments. He's not. He's about as postmodern as you can get. He's essentially saying all we have is this story and this story can liberate you. Amazing!

Gamera

Toto, Paul mentions the cross and Jesus crucifixion and his suffering and his death and his resurrection. To pretend this is just an isolated reference to a mystical cross is unconvincing.

Ah, Toto, Paul is discussing the preaching of the gospel which is explicitly says is about Jesus. What does it mean to "hear" about somebody - it means to hear about his life, his death, his biography. Honestly, you're being coy.

So? The four narrative gospels exist and come out of the same milieu as Paul. That's simply more evidence that Paul is refering to a story so widely known by his audience that he doesn't need to go into detail in an epistle.

But you're chaning your tune. Earlier you didn't like the fact that he only mentioned a cross. Here he mentions crucifixion, an event in time that a person undergoes. It is biographical. Whether it refers to the particular gospel narratives we have (it obvious does but let that pass) it does refer to biography and hence a narrative, which his my point.

Are you claiming that Paul is refering to a crucifixion that didn't happen in time and didn't involve a person and didn't result in suffering and death? Really?

Well, the interpolation argument is a different can of worms. Not going to go there with you now. My point is, this passage is clearly biographical and hence refers to a narrative.

They might care for any number of Christological reasons, but leaving that aside, the fact remains that Paul is aware of different gospels which he says are about a "different" i.e. false Jesus -- what else can that mean except that those gospels tell a different story about Jesus, even if it's a docetic ghost. That too involves a narrative.


Sounds like if it was you'd admit that it was narrative, and so at the very least the interpolator thought Paul preached a gospel that was a Jesus narrative. Where do you think he got that idea?

Jesus' gospel was the coming of the kingdom through his role in the story as the messiah. And that's a narrative.

NOGO

Everything Paul knows about Jesus comes fromn scripture.
Paul discovered Jesus through scriptures.
Unlike the Gospels, which try to show that some aspect of Jesus' life was prophesized in scriptures, Paul only quotes scriptures without any reference to the HJ.

In other words the equation
Jesus did/said == scriptures reference
never appears in Paul.

So we have that
Jesus was hung from a tree because scripture say so.
Jesus died because scripture say so
Jesus resurrrected on the third day because scripture say so.

Paul's Gospel of Jesus is that because Jesus was resurrected by God then death was vanquished. The resurrection was proof that God adopted Jesus as his son and though him all Christians. Where is Jesus' life and teachings in this? Paul has no need of them.

spamandham

At this point, you are obligated to provide a 1st/2nd century definition of the greek word in question, to demonstrate that it suggests a narrative, since you've made this claim several times now.

I've never heard of this interpretation, but I'm certainly no expert on 1st/2nd century Greek.

gurugeorge

"Milieu"?

Handwaving Police! Calling Chris Weimer!!

Gamera, sorry but your responses to Toto are just so much question begging and handwaving. It seems to me you aren't even beginning to do any kind of actual investigation of these texts, just taking your Christian view of the thing for granted and reading the texts through that. Nobody can blame you for doing that, and Christians have done that for centuries, and it produces a sort of coherent story, but it's not going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe.

Chris Weimer

Yes, I'm going to have to scratch my head at Gamera here. I don't think his view on euaggelion is correct. Paul does preach a narrative, but it's only tangential to his gospel, which is Jesus' death, resurrection, and what that means to those tied to the body.

Gamera

I think you've inadvertantly made my point. Leaving aside our disagreement where Paul got the story, you're admiting it's a story, a narrative, about Jesus. And that's my point. Toto seems to be arguing that the gospel was a not a story but a philosophical/theological argument of some sort. Your position, that Paul preached a Jesus invented from Hebrew Scripture makes my point, not his, though I disagree with your premise.

Gamera

I don't know what you mean by "tangential," and I don't know if it matters. Paul's gospel is a narrative. He preached the gospel. He also wrote epistles where he discussed the meaning of the gospel in the lives of his audience, Christians, who were new at this.

Exactly where do disagree?

Gamera

I think you're failing to focus on the issue. I'm not discussing the texts (by which you mean I think the epistles), I'm discussion what Paul apparently preached, which he identifies as a gospel, which he indicates was a narrative, which is supported by the meaning of the word and the exitence of 4 narrative gospels.

You seem to want to make a point about the epistles, which isn't what I'm discussing.