aa5874

Why do you ASSUME the Pauline writings are history? Please state a single external source of antiquity that can corroborate the Pauline Jesus Messiah as ALIVE and living in a CITY called Nazareth BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Well, the Pauline writings are of NO value in locating the City of Nazareth or that Jesus lived in a CITY called Nazareth since the Pauline Jesus, based on your own view, appear not to know about the earthly life of Jesus.

The Pauline writers appear to be BELIEVE or wanted people to BELIEVE his Jesus once RESIDED in a TOMB for three days and was RESURRECTED to save mankind from sins.

Toto

But just read it:
Romans 10 verse 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

This seems simple and straightforward. The Jews have not heard about Jesus. You have reinterpreted the plain language to force this simple statement to conform to your preexisting beliefs about a historcial Jesus who preached to the Jews and was crucified on the urging of Jewish leaders.

Doesn't your explanation look like "such a stretch that it would only be made by someone seeking to find evidence for a previously held opinion" ?

Juststeve

Mercy:

Perhaps you can rephrase your question. To me there is nothing obvious about Paul's theory of salvation and I've had it preached at me. You think it's obvious? I just don't get what you're asking.

Steve

aa5874

What has the Pauline writings have to do with the OP.

The Pauline writings have been deduced to be heavily interpolated, full of forgeries and have NOT been externally corroborated.

The Pauline writer did NOT mention Nazareth and did NOT mention where his Jesus lived except AFTER he was RAISED from the dead.

There is REALLY no historical value in the Pauline writings to make any resolution to the question about Jesus of Nazareth.

Juststeve

Toto:

Steven Carr, to who I responded, asked me about Romans 10, not Romans 14. Do you wish to engage on the subject of Romans 10? If so you already know what I think about that.

As to Romans 14 it really depends on what Paul means by hearing about Jesus. Is he referring to hearing that another Jew named Jesus was crucified by the Romans, or is he referring to hearing that Jesus was the means of salvation? Given Paul's preoccupation with the subject of Jesus as savior, not Jesus as man and teacher, the answer is obvious, at least to me. Even people who were witnesses to the life of Jesus and his crucifixion would need to hear about the significance of those events, from Paul's perspective.

Even today Christians will ask "have you heard about Jesus". They are not talking about the Jesus of history but rather Jesus the path to salvation. That's what I think Paul meant.

As I've made clear I don't agree with Paul's preaching but I don't think what he wrote supports the fringe notion you champion.

Steve

Toto

Sorry - I left off the 10 when I copied the verse. I quoted Romans 10:14, which is what I believe that Steven Carr had in mind.

Here's the start of Romans 10: 1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Would they? People who witnessed the resurrected Jesus would have to hear about the signficance of that event?

But you are still adding a lot to the simple words of the text.

Just read the plain words and tell me what they mean, without being so concerned about "fringe" beliefs.

jakejonesiv

Dear AA,

Excuse me, but where do the Pauline writings say that Jesus was in a tomb for three days? Are you making things up as you go?

Jake

Juststeve

Toto:

First, when you add the resurrection to the mix you are adding something that I have repeatedly denied is historical. For the record I have good reason for denying that dead people come back to life and I therefore reject the accounts that Jesus did.

That said, even if you posit a person who knew Jesus in life, who saw him crucified, and who saw him again after his resurrection Paul’s theory of salvation would still not be the least obvious. We know from Paul’s own writings that his theory that Jesus had done away with the law was not obvious to members of the Jerusalem Church including Peter and James. They were still adherent to the law. They did not accept Paul’s thesis that you become righteous by believing not by following the law.

What Paul is contending needed to be preached is the theory of salvation, not the historical Jesus. In fact from what you have quoted it is clear that someone like me who believes Jesus to be an historical figure would still be damned because in Paul’s terms I do not believe.

Steve

spamandham

Hey I see this as progress. You are starting to recognize that Paul could care less about a historical human Jesus at all, just like many of us have been saying. I actually agree with your understanding of Romans 14. But something interesting happens immediately following this passage and is still part of the same context.


How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world."Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
"I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."
And Isaiah boldly says,
"I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."
But concerning Israel he says,
"All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people."

Paul is talking in the past tense about how the "Israelites" failed to accept the good news, quoting from Isaiah to prove it. Doesn't this seem odd to you if the context is a recently crucified man? Why is Paul talking about Israelites rather than Jews? How could anyone think Isaiah's message was about a contemporary of Paul's who had been crucified?

Here's what Paul is talking about in Isaiah 52:


Therefore my people will know my name;
therefore in that day they will know
that it is I who foretold it.
Yes, it is I."

How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
"Your God reigns!"

Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices;
together they shout for joy.
When the LORD returns to Zion,
they will see it with their own eyes.

Burst into songs of joy together,
you ruins of Jerusalem,
for the LORD has comforted his people,
he has redeemed Jerusalem.

In Paul's mind, the salvation of YHWH (wich is what the name 'Jesus' means) has *returned*, not departed. God's salvation had already departed the Israelites way back even before Isaiah, even before Moses in the distant past in Paul's mind, the resurrection is it's return. Jesus is not the name of some historical dude that Paul could care less about, it's the salvation promised by Isaiah and the Psalms.

Juststeve

Spam:

If you are suggesting that Paul took Jesus to be the promised Messiah I think that much is obvious. Most Christians today take Jesus to be the Messiah. Paul and most Christians are wrong if they take messiah to mean he who is predicted in the Hebrew Bible but that appears to be what threy claim. Jesus failed the Messiah test. Other Messianic pretenders have as well.

That Paul, post road to Damascus experience, took Jesus to be the Messiah indicates if anything that he thought he was a real man existing in history prior to his crucifixion. That’s what Jews expect, a real flesh and blood Messiah.

How Paul got from a Jewish conception of the Messiah to a dead guy who did none of the things the Messiah will do should he come I don’t know. Maybe he had sun stroke on the way to Damascus.

Steve