TedM

On the Wells/Doherty thread I mentioned there are 92 references to what sounds like a human Jesus in Paul's epistles. Someone challenged me on that so I listed them: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....85#post6904985

The response was:

To which I decided to give a more expanded explanation which turns the table on the 'silences in Paul' issue. I have long thought that there are many unusual and unexpected silences in Paul's epistles IF Doherty is right, and it is usually brushed off with simple replies like "everyone already knew what Paul was talking about" or "Paul just didn't have much more information on his mythical Jesus like he would have had for a historical Jesus". That seems insufficient to me. Enough talk. Here it is:


The main problem I have with the Doherty interpretation of Paul is that as I've shown Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus in ways that anyone would refer to another human being, and he virtually NEVER qualifies those statements by making clear he is talking about the kind of heavenly man Doherty imagines he is talking about.

If it was just a few--or even a dozen such references I'd say there is some room for debate here. But 92 references just make that viewpoint look silly.

He NEVER says anything about Jesus having a life in some other 'world' than earth, nor how he came to that insight. He constantly quotes from the OT to support this or that about a Messiah-who would be normally seen as a man from God who came to earth. Yet, he NEVER indicates anything contrary to that concept, nor HOW he came to conclude all these various things pertaining to the Messiah happened elsewhere:

He NEVER explains that his flesh and blood wasn't human flesh and blood on earth despite repeatedly describing Jesus as a man, in the flesh, etc...
He NEVER explains how someone who lived and died in another world can represent or atone for human beings on this earth
He NEVER explains how he can be a Jew, descended from David, etc in this other world, yet argues for the spiritual benefits of those things.
He NEVER explains how Jesus can be in Zion (code for Jerusalem) as a stumbling block and offense to Israel yet not have been on earth.
He NEVER reveals a revelatory source for his information regarding the Lord's Supper, or who Jesus was talking to in that other world--something one would expect to be of interest by his followers.
He NEVER explains how he knew Jesus was meek and gentle.

It seems to me that if all these events occurred in another sphere he would have a NAME for that sphere, and would reference it by that name when talking about Jesus--at least ONCE in all the 92 references! Doesn't it seem glaringly odd that there is no such reference? To me the clear conclusion is that it is because such a place only exists in the mind of Doherty and those he has convinced of his imaginative theory!

I'll add to that a few specifics about which I think the JM arguments are quite weak:

The 'brothers' references. Paul refers to the 'brethren' as in being brothers to each other, but he never discusses in detail a special group that is known as 'brothers of the Lord', and there is no record of such a group other than actual physical brothers of Jesus of Nazareth. One had the same name Paul references in Galations (James). Paul so nonchalantly mentions James as the Lord's brother. One would think if he was in a special group he'd say 'one of the Lord's Brothers'. It also seems odd that he would single out James from Peter and John. Why weren't they the Lord's Brother too? Just sounds to me more likely to be the first thing readers would assume--biological relationship.

Galations 4:4 Born of a woman, born a Jew. Paul again states this nonchalantly as a known fact. He sees no need to explain how Jesus was born from a woman or as a Jew in another sphere. Aren't there obvious questions that would arise? Where in Paul's defense of his theology does he even show that anyone was asking about this other world and Paul's claims regarding various happenings in that world? Why doesn't he talk about where he got all that from?

2 Cor 2:9 says the rulers who put him to death would not have done so if they had the wisdom of God. This makes sense given the context that is talking about wisdom from God given to man. If it is talking about heavenly rulers Paul not only fails to make that distinction (despite quoting a verse about them that identifies them as human beings), but he also fails to explain why those beings, those dark spiritual forces who rule this world, would have been not crucified Jesus had they understood God's wisdom. This is highly unlikely.

Once someone decides that 'man' doesn't REALLY mean 'man', that 'flesh' doesn't REALLY mean 'flesh', 'buried' doesn't REALLY mean 'buried' in the normal senses of the word, and that it can ALL apply to happenings in another world, then as long as there is nothing explicitly stated to contradict that idea, he can get away with all kinds of things.. However, it doesn't negate the very real fact that there are glaring omissions when all of the various references are lacking in anything one might expect to support the theory: explanations of HOW or WHY he uses the terms that apply normally to humans, explanations of the other world-where it exists, how it reflects our own world, small references that place the events in that other world (ie 'the heavenly crucifixion'), and the source(s) of this information he has derived--esp when it is clear he is quoting constantly from the OT in other places. When you sit back and examine all of the evidence with a clear head, you realize that it is a bunch of creative, non-falsifiable, malarkey.

At least, that's how it looks to me.

NOW you have some basis for concluding why it is that I don't support the JM theory: It's the lack of evidence I would expect to find in support of it. IMO my arguments from silence are stronger that Doherty's arguments from silence.

Ted

p.s. I probably will not engage in debating this here much because I just don't have the time, but perhaps this will spur some discussion.

Steven Carr

'Where in Paul's defense of his theology does he even show that anyone was asking about this other world and Paul's claims regarding various happenings in that world?'

You mean Paul never refers to the Jerusalem that is above us?

How then do we know that Paul thought there was a Jerusalem above us, if he never refers to it in Galatians 4?

How do we know that the author of Hebrews thought there was a copy above us of things on Earth if he never referred to it in places like Hebrews 8?

How do we know that the author of Hebrews thought Jesus acted in a sanctuary and tabernacle in Heaven?

As we have just been informed that early Christians were silent about Jesus doing things in Heaven, rather than on Earth....

TedM

You didn't answer my question.

Steven Carr

I just did.

You simply silenced Paul when Paul talked about the Jerusalem above us, and then declared that Paul was silent about a world above us.

TedM

Paul doesn't place the life of Jesus in the Jerusalem 'above'. Period. End of story. Nor does he refer to the Jerusalem above in any way that leads us to believe it was a city occupied with anybody at the moment. It is a place that symbolizes spiritual freedom but it is not clear that Paul believed it was an actual current place over a hoped for future place of freedom.


The gospels refer to Jesus ascending to heaven after his crucifixion on earth. Nothing in Hebrews suggest otherwise AFAIK. And there is a distinction between saying things happened in heaven and in some other sphere. Neither Paul nor the author of Hebrews places Jesus in another sphere. It is the product of imagination, including yours.

My question addressed Paul responding to inquiries about this other world. Your two examples give no hint of such inquiries. My question also addressed 'various happenings' related to Jesus in this other world. Your two examples fail to address that also, and one simply provides support the traditional view that Jesus went to heaven after he was crucified on earth..

Paul remained remarkably silent in his support of the JM theory.

PhilosopherJay

From Wikipedia, Morgan Le Fay...

Is Morgan Le Fay a fairy or a woman? Perhaps as the writers of King Arthurs' legend could not make up their minds, the writers/editors of Paul could not decide either if Jesus the Anointed One was God or man.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

TedM

Sorry Jay, I fail to see how this relates to the OP..

PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM,

Thanks for your reply. I did not do a very good job of connecting my comments with the OP.

It has been a while since I studied Doherty's work. I recall that his negative work showing that Paul did not reference a recently crucified man was quite convincing and his "Other worldly" crucified man seemed to fit well in some cases, but stretched a bit in other cases. I would suggest that the reference to Jesus are unstable, possibly because of different writers/editors or Jesus concepts changing.

While Doherty's specific solution to the Paul Jesus-reference problem may not be entirely correct, it does not mean that a correct mythicist solution cannot be found or that we need to go back to an historical Jesus solution.

In the first example in your OP, Galatians 4.4 is not a reference to Jesus Christ crucified at all:

The reference Of "God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" is not a specific man, but the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel is the son of God. Born of a woman, just means a human being, under the law just means Jewish.

Paul's meaning can best be understood if one understands the importance of adoption in Roman society. We think that a naturally born son should have more rights than an adopted child, but the Romans looked at it just the opposite. The naturally born child was no better than a slave. He had no rights whatsoever in the Roman family. It was the adopted son, selected by the head of the family who inherited all the rights. The first nine emperors in the Roman emperor were adopted sons, not sons by birth.
If we go back to Julius Caesar, we know that Caesar had a number of children including Caesarion by Cleopatra, a paternity that he acknowledged. However it was his adopted son Octavian who inherited his power.
In the days before paternity tests, it would be impossible to know who a woman really slept with to have a child and Roman patrician men would often sleep with many women and have many children outside their marriages. Marriage was for the sake of political alliances between families, not for pro-creation or love.
The adoptive son represented the chosen son. Of course, a father could choose to give his wealth to a naturally born son too. In this case the naturally born son would be considered the adopted son and new head of the family.
This is the relationship that Paul describes between the Jewish Nation and God. They are the naturally born son of God and he kept them under laws like a slave. At a certain point he sets his son (the Jewish Nation) free from these laws and adopts him to take control of his estate, in this case, the whole world. That is basically what Paul is announcing that the time has come for the Jews (the natural son of God) to be the adopted son of God and to rule the whole world.

In Corinthians 2:8, we're getting something quite different.

The term "Lord of Glory" probably refers to Psalm 29.

1Ascribe to the LORD, O sons of the mighty,
Ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.

2Ascribe to the LORD the glory due to His name;
Worship the LORD in holy array.

While the idea of a God of Glory probably comes from Hebrew Scripture, a crucified God is a Greco=Roman concept.

Here is the beginning of Lucian's Prometheus Caucus
By saying that their God, the lord of glory had been crucified, Paul was simply comparing the Jewish God to Prometheus. That is the way Greco-Roman society had treated him.

In this context, the term Jesus Christ would be simply King Jesus, with Jesus perhaps being best translated as Yaweh saves. It is the Jewish God, King Yaweh Saves that has by crucified by the rulers of this age.

That is Paul's ultra-orthodox paranoid perception.

The later gospels will give a more graphic and realistic portrayal, substituting the Son of God for the God Jesus Christ that Paul refers to here.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

What!!! "PAUL" repeatedly claimed Jesus was God's OWN Son.

Look at Galatians 1.

The PAULINE JESUS was NOT a man and it is DOCUMENTED.

Now, please show where "Paul" REPEATEDLY described Jesus as a man.

There is NO SUCH REPEATED description in the Pauline writings.

In the Pauline writings, Jesus is not known to have a human father.

"Paul" REPEATEDLY claimed Jesus was the Son of God .

TedM

aa, if Paul never describes Jesus as a man, then why does he literally describe him as a 'man'?

Please take your nonsense elsewhere.