GakuseiDon

I'm not sure what you mean by "chain of custody". but the details are given in the thread I referred to. Let's start from the beginning:

(1) Paul thought that Jesus was an earthly person:

• 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 (Romans 9:3-5)

The various uses of "according to the flesh" can be found on the Text Excavation website:
http://www.textexcavation.com/accordingtotheflesh.html

The usage of "flesh" when used non-allegorically is clear. Paul doesn't appear to be using it allegorically here, so this supports that Paul regarded Jesus as a "fleshy" and earthly being.

(2) Paul thought that Jesus came sometime after Moses and David:

• 1. Jesus must have lived after Adam, since Paul calls him the latter Adam (1 Corinthians 15.22, 45).
  2. Jesus must have lived after Abraham, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of Abraham (Galatians 3.16).
  3. Jesus must have lived after Moses, since Paul says that he was the end of the law of Moses (Romans 10.4-5).
  4. Jesus must have lived after David, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of David (Romans 1.4).

Paul appears to suggest a few times that Jesus came at some definite time in the past. For now, I'll note only that it appears to be in "at some time in recorded history", given that Jesus came after Abraham, who was a clear presence in Scriptures (I'll expand on the importance of this in the future)

(3) Paul thought that Jesus came in the flesh, died and was resurrected by God, and arose in a new spirit body:

• [Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)
  
  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Cor 15:45)

Here we see that Paul appears to be dividing the life of Jesus into two parts: a "fleshly" life, which is Jesus up to his resurrection; and then a "spiritual" life, which is Jesus after the resurrection.

----

So, putting it all together: Paul's Jesus is someone who was a "fleshly" earthly person; came sometime after David; was "in the flesh" until he died; and was resurrected by God as a "quickening spirit".

Does all that seem reasonable as a base? Are there any alternate supportable readings for any of the above?

dog-on

I meant chain of custody for the letters themselves. Would not want anything that may have been tampered with to cloud our investigation.

GakuseiDon

True enough. Nope, I can't prove that the passages above have been tampered with.

dog-on

That was an unfair question, on my part, as I knew the answer.

Tell me this. Even if Paul believed that Jesus was a real guy that was recently crucified, could Paul have been mistaken?

How would we know?

In other words. What corroborates Paul?

Steven Carr

Benjamin Creme tells us that the Maitreya is living as a Muslim in London.

But there is no such person.

Mythicists can point to endless examples of religions featuring non-existent people.

Can historicists point to a religion where its historical founder told his followers how to get access to his body and blood in a ritual cultic meal?

maryhelena

Oh, I have a case alright - I have had for many a year - and have posted some relevant views on this forum. Anything else - well, at my leisure...

As to your statement re lets 'have no nonsense that mythicists have some case that needs to be answered'. GDon, you are still not hearing what I am saying. The 'case' that needs to be answered re a mythicist view is that Jesus is not historical - that is the one and only case that has to be answered by historicists. And that case has no need for my own views whatsoever - they are, as I keep repeating, secondary.

GDon, don't keep side-tracking this issue. The historicists case is that Jesus is historical - the mythicist case is no, Jesus is not historical. The mythicist is rejecting the historicist position. That a mythicist might come up with some additional views, secondary points of interest - and often easy targets for the historicists - this is like taking a big hammer to knock down a very small nail. Might look impressive for the historicists position - but that is only a very surface 'victory'. The real 'battle' is not being undertaken by the historicists at all. The only way the historicists can knock down the mythicists is to provide historical evidence for their position - and you know very well that they cannot do that.

The historicists cannot win this 'battle'. Hence, instead of the usual ridicule and slurs that get branded about - somewhere along the line an accommodation needs to be sought. The mythicsts are not going away - some of them might well have outlandish ideas - but so has Christian theology through the years.

So, perhaps a suggestion - stop looking at the outlandish ideas some mythicists might have - and zero in, utterly and completely, at the core of the mythicist position: The Jesus in the New Testament is not a historical figure.

dog-on

Sure, Paul as the founder of Christianity told his followers who to access Christ's body.

(Well, maybe pseudo Paul did...)

dog-on

That's about it, imo.

aa5874

NO, NO.

The details of Jesus are found in the very Canon of which the Pauline writings are a part.

It is just completely absurd and ridiculous to have a Canon which clearly described the origin of Jesus and then have some-one, may be suffering from amnesia or in denial, claiming that Jesus was just a man.

How many times are we going to go over the same thing?

The NT Canon is about a virgin born character based on Isaiah 7.14and the Holy Ghost of God.

The Pauline Jesus is no different to the Synoptic Jesus. It will never ever be found in the Canon that Jesus was a man, unless people think that those who put the Canon together were complete idiots.

Jesus believers do not worship men as Gods. If Jesus was known to be a man there would have been no gospel story and no Pauline writings.

The Church has already made clear who they worship. They worship a God/Man, a God who put on the flesh of Man and came to earth and they have their Canon which fully supports their God/Man doctrine.

A Pauline writer has already declared that he is not the Apostle of a man but of one who was raised from the dead. A Pauline writer has already declared Jesus to be the Son of God.

It is virtually impossible to use the Canon to show that Jesus was just a man unless you can't remember that the Canon is a manual of a God/man.

ApostateAbe

maryhelena, whenever I am asked to provide evidence for my position, I do it, even though I repeat it many time ad nauseum. It helps others and myself review who has a better case. I have said in another thread that there should be no default position on Jesus theories. We should believe whatever fits the evidence with the most probability. There are a handful of people in this forum who do not wish to argue their case for a mythical Jesus (some of them think they have a case and some don't), but they criticize the idea of a historical Jesus because they believe the evidence is not there. Upon further investigation, I find that they view probability as too subjective, and they accept the postmodernist way of thinking (though they don't call it that). For such people, moderately good evidence is not enough, no different from a complete lack of evidence. The evidence has to be a slam dunk, or they simply will not accept the idea. This way of thinking is foreign to our everyday lives--we accept and act on various degrees of uncertainty--but it is very common among people who do not wish to accept a conclusion seemingly backed by the evidence. Of course, the evidence for a historical Jesus will never be a slam dunk.

I know that you at one point have said that finding probability is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Have you become one of those people?