Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 06-18-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Here are some places in Paul's letters where we would expect him to quote Jesus, but doesn't:

Mark 14:58 / Matt 26:59 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" (i.e. the body is the new temple)

Don't examples where something is in the Gospels but not in Paul only work if it is assumed that the Gospels represent accurate history?

If you don't believe that the Gospels represent accurate history, how can you use them to show what should be in Paul? Logically, if they aren't in Paul, then that goes against the Gospels. I can't see the logic working the other way, though.

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2010, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Abe - didn't you just claim that you had read Doherty's website? Evidently you didn't read it carefully enough. This is why this conversation is getting annoying. You can be as polite as you want and all all sorts of smilies, but when you keep repeating bad arguments . . .

The Sound of Silence

There are actually more than "200 Missing References to the Gospel Jesus in the New Testament Epistles."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

New Testament commentators have long remarked, frequently with some perplexity, on the dearth of references in the early Christian correspondence to details of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. "The early church lost all interest in the earthly career of the man they turned into God." This has been the standard method of explaining the extensive silence on the human Jesus to be found in the canonical epistles. I have questioned the feasibility of such an eventuality taking place, the likelihood that the elevation of a man to Godhead would—or could—entail the complete dismissal of his earthly incarnation as unimportant or of no interest to the first two generations of Christian believers. Other rationalizations put forward to explain the silence have included the claim that, since every epistle writer knew that the details of Jesus’ life and ministry were familiar to their readers (which would be a very questionable assumption in itself), no one bothered to make even a passing reference to any of those details, even in places where they would naturally come to mind. J. P. Holding, in his rebuttal to my views—see Reader Feedback—has put it that "there was no need" to mention all these elements of the Gospel account.

... In the present feature, "The Sound of Silence," I will point out and comment on virtually all the identifiable places in the Pauline corpus (Paul and pseudo-Paul), in Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 & 2 John and Jude, where a reference to some Gospel element, some mention of the historical Jesus, would seem natural, or even called for. One would, of course, not expect to find such a reference in every single instance. But to find it missing in so many instances, covering all aspects of the life and death portrayed in the Gospels, is an astonishing phenomenon which cannot be blithely dismissed or explained away. This is a silence which cuts across every early document, through several authors and a multiplicity of situations, and it creates a very powerful and compelling "argument from silence."

My personal catalogue of silences in the epistles numbers around 250, but I will trim that, along with some combining of closely related ones, to a figure of the most clearly identifiable 200. I’ll start by extracting from these a "Top 20", the ones I find most arresting and most representative. ...

OK, Toto. I am probably not going to cover all 200 of those, or even the top 20, but I covered the first two "silences" that Doherty claims. You can find my new thread here:

Criticism of Doherty's "The Sound of Silence," Romans 1:19-20 and Romans 16:25-27

ApostateAbe · 06-19-2010, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There is a fallacy that I think is common among both the scholarship and among us about accusations of "arguments from silence." Robert E. Van Voorst made this error when he indicted the mythicist argument about Paul's relative silence about Jesus, saying,

Arguments from silence about ancient times, here about the supposed lack of biblical or extrabiblical references to Jesus, are especially perilous.

Perhaps he didn't mean it this way, but it is easily understood (or misunderstood) to imply that arguments from silence are always faulty. They are not. Silence of a certain topic within a set of evidence, in fact, almost always deserve an explanation. The fault is not the argument from silence, but the fault is the relative unlikelihood of the propositions chosen to explain such silence. We need to choose the best explanations for the silence, and it is typically not enough to use silence as evidence--unless you successfully argue why your explanation for the silence is better than the competing explanations.

The relative silence of Paul about the human nature of Jesus is a good example. The phrase, "relative silence," is chosen because, in fact, Paul is not completely silent about the human nature of Jesus. Paul certainly thought of Jesus as spiritual in large part, but there is also a small handful of times when Paul seems to be explicit about Jesus being a physical human.

"born of a woman" Galatians 4:4
"who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3
"I saw none of the other apostles--save James, the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8
"You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried" 1 Corinthians 15:4

The best explanation, therefore, covers both the tendency of Paul's silence and the small handful of times that he breaks that tendency.

The silence isn't about the human nature of Jesus. Someone's human nature could simply be asserted without any sort of evidence, as the later heresiologists do. If you notice, most of your examples are instances of creeds or dogmas. If you were writing a letter to someone and were talking about a third party that both you and your receiver knew, would you use a phrase "...and yeah, Joe Smith was born of a woman."? Of course not; that's pretty axiomatic. Do you think if I wrote an email to someone talking about you and wrote "...and ApostateAbe's human nature is of the seed of King Arthur" they would think I actually knew you? It reads more like a formulaic dogma or creed, not an anecdote about a recently deceased human being.

Those are some good points. I love it when I am compared to Jesus.

In fact, the difference between me and Paul's model of Jesus may explain why Paul used the phrase, "...born of a woman..." He said that in Galatians 4:4, immediately after saying that Jesus was the son of God. Normal offspring of the gods, in Paul's social environment, would not be born of women. They would be born from gods! So, yeah, it is a doctrinal statement, and you seem to think it follows that it was likely a sectarian interpolation or something. But, what Paul wrote simply follows from our normal expectations--Paul was describing the divine narrative and purpose of Jesus' life. Yeah, Paul could have just said, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son ... born under the Law," leaving out, "born of a woman," and someone may be led to think that Jesus was born from the gods, or at least they would be a little confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The silence is more about Paul actually knowing anyone that had any sort of non-spiritual encounter with Jesus -- without appealing to later gospel material. Which is especially damning because Paul argues a lot of the same points that Jesus argues in the gospel narratives, yet Paul doesn't quote him on those.

Here are some places in Paul's letters where we would expect him to quote Jesus, but doesn't:

Mark 14:58 / Matt 26:59 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" (i.e. the body is the new temple)

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Cr 6:19)

(2 Cor 6:16) What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God

---
Matt 5:39 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

Romans 12:17-21
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." (Prov. 25:21,22 ) 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

---

Mark 7
What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.

Colossians 2:14-16 [Jesus] canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us…having nailed it to the cross, having spoiled the principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them through it therefore, let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths”

---

Mark 12:13-17
13: And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Hero'di-ans, to entrap him in his talk. 14: And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? 15: Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." 16: And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." 17: Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at him.

Romans 13:6-7: This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: if you owe taxes, pay taxes. If revenue, then revenue. If respect, then respect. If honor, then honor

---

Mark 2

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Colossians 2:14-16 [Jesus] canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us…having nailed it to the cross, having spoiled the principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them through it therefore, let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths”

-----

Paul even contradicts Jesus:

Mark 10:18
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

2 Cor 5:21
God made [Jesus] who had no sin to be a sin offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul even argues that Jesus (nor any apostles) did no miracles, in opposition to the gospel narratives:

Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles!
----
1 Cor 1:22-23
22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

Paul says that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day "according to the scriptures", not because anyone saw such. Paul also says in Ephesians 4 that Jesus ascended to/descended from heaven using Psalm 68 as an argument, not because anyone saw such a thing.

Paul says that "the mystery of Christ" was hidden for generations and recently revealed to him:

Ephesians 3

4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.

Romans 16:25

Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past

If we take all of this into account, it seems as though Christ was revealed in scripture, not due to anyone actually witnessing anything miraculous. This is how Paul can quote the LXX and claim or infer that it points to "Jesus" (as the non-titular "the Lord") in places like Rom 10.9-13; 1 Cor 1.31; or 2 Cor 10.15-18.

You might argue that Ephesians is a contested letter, but then you're citing 1 Thes 2:14-16 as evidence though you're unable to comprehend that even if 1 Thess is considered an "authentic" Pauline epistle, this doesn't mean that it's 100% pristine and free of interpolations. Worse yet, this would count as another time where Paul makes the same argument that Jesus (or the gospel authors) makes in the gospel narratives (cf Mark 12:1-9).

And then note that 1 Cor 11:23-30 is also contested. Either as an interpolation, or is argued to not an authentic quote of Jesus.

Lastly, Paul doesn't mention meeting anyone who was any sort of "disciple" of Jesus. His Jesus didn't have any students, just those that are sent out (i.e. apostles). Saying that Paul met disciples is projecting later written "facts" from the gospel narratives into Paul's letters. The trend seems to be that as soon as Jesus is given "disciples" by the gospel narratives in the late 1st century, that Gnosticism (i.e. some concept of "secret teachings") begins to explode in the early 2nd.

Those are tough arguments! GakuseiDon seems to have made something of a good point--Paul knew nothing about the New Testament canon, including the gospels, because the canon didn't exist. Maybe he knew some of the myths, maybe he didn't, or maybe he knew some of them and just didn't agree with them. The mainline model is that Paul wrote earlier than all of the rest of the New Testament.

In addition, please note that we all agree that Paul's Jesus really is different from the Jesus seen in the gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The division is in how different. I believe that Paul spun Jesus very much into primarily a spiritual being, and that serves to explain a heckuva lot, without conflicting with the passages that seem to indicate that Paul still thought of Jesus as part human. The common mythicist model is that Paul's Jesus was only a spiritual being, which explains the spiritual stuff, but it conflicts with all of the human stuff. Therefore, why would you choose the common mythicist model as more probable?

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

GakuseiDon seems to have made something of a good point--Paul knew nothing about the New Testament canon, including the gospels, because the canon didn't exist.

It's more like: if you discount the Gospels as containing much history, or verifiable history, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Gospel details that are missing in Paul are a reflection on Paul.

This is something I point out in my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither Man Nor God" (mostly completed now): such an approach only questions the historical Jesus of an orthodox Christianity, or anyone who believes that the Gospels accurately recorded what happened. Removing that premise means being careful to read Gospel details into Paul or make inferences about Gospel details that are missing in Paui.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Maybe he knew some of the myths, maybe he didn't, or maybe he knew some of them and just didn't agree with them. The mainline model is that Paul wrote earlier than all of the rest of the New Testament.

I suggest that the first step is reading Paul for Paul without using Gospel details at all. If we do, we can get a broad sketch of Jesus' life:

Jesus was born a Jew:

Romans 9:3
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

Jesus was a descendent of David:

Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

Jesus did not please himself (sounds like he could have done something different):

Rom 15:3
For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

Jesus was 'rich' but became 'poor' by choice:

2Cr 8:9
For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Jesus knew no sin:

2Cr 5:21
For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus suffered:

Rom 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

On the night he was delivered up to the rulers of the age for crucifixion, he shared bread:

1Cr 11:23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was delivered up took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Jesus death was 'righteous':

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Jesus was appointed "Son of God" by the resurrection, according to the Spirit:

Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

Jesus was resurrected a short time before Paul wrote:

1 Cor 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man [came] death, by man [anthropos] [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming

As almost a summary of much of the above: Jesus made himself of no reputation, came as a servant and humbled himself, became obedient unto death, and earned the name "Lord":

Phl 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Plenty of gaps there, but also some themes:
1. Jesus was a Jew
2. He led a life that was without sin
3. Nevertheless, he was delivered over to the rulers of the age for crucifixion
4. He was obedient unto death, and this earned him resurrection and the titles of "Lord" and "Son of God"
5. He was the first-fruits of the general resurrection, an indication to Paul that the world was nearing the end of the current age. This seems to suggest that the resurrection occurred in Paul's recent past.

maryhelena · 06-19-2010, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

GakuseiDon seems to have made something of a good point--Paul knew nothing about the New Testament canon, including the gospels, because the canon didn't exist.

It's more like: if you discount the Gospels as containing much history, or verifiable history, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Gospel details that are missing in Paul are a reflection on Paul.

This is something I point out in my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither Man Nor God" (mostly completed now): such an approach only questions the historical Jesus of an orthodox Christianity, or anyone who believes that the Gospels accurately recorded what happened. Removing that premise means being careful to read Gospel details into Paul or make inferences about Gospel details that are missing in Paui.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Maybe he knew some of the myths, maybe he didn't, or maybe he knew some of them and just didn't agree with them. The mainline model is that Paul wrote earlier than all of the rest of the New Testament.

I suggest that the first step is reading Paul for Paul without using Gospel details at all. If we do, we can get a broad sketch of Jesus' life:

Jesus was born a Jew:

Romans 9:3
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

Jesus was a descendent of David:

Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

Jesus did not please himself (sounds like he could have done something different):

Rom 15:3
For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

Jesus was 'rich' but became 'poor' by choice:

2Cr 8:9
For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Jesus knew no sin:

2Cr 5:21
For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus suffered:

Rom 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

On the night he was delivered up to the rulers of the age for crucifixion, he shared bread:

1Cr 11:23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was delivered up took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Jesus death was 'righteous':

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Jesus was appointed "Son of God" by the resurrection, according to the Spirit:

Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

Jesus was resurrected a short time before Paul wrote:

1 Cor 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man [came] death, by man [anthropos] [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming

As almost a summary of much of the above: Jesus made himself of no reputation, came as a servant and humbled himself, became obedient unto death, and earned the name "Lord":

Phl 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Plenty of gaps there, but also some themes:
1. Jesus was a Jew
2. He led a life that was without sin
3. Nevertheless, he was delivered over to the rulers of the age for crucifixion
4. He was obedient unto death, and this earned him resurrection and the titles of "Lord" and "Son of God"
5. He was the first-fruits of the general resurrection, an indication to Paul that the world was nearing the end of the current age. This seems to suggest that the resurrection occurred in Paul's recent past.

All you have here, at the very best, is an assumed humanity. Paul's Jesus is not a historical figure but a spiritual figure. The assumed humanity of Jesus that is referenced in your quotations is just that - an assumed humanity as a counterpart to the spiritual construction of Paul's Jesus. The assumed humanity, a veneer of humanity, is as much a theological story as is the assumed humanity of the sons of god that married the daughters of men in the days of Noah. To postulate a historical Jesus you need historical verification not NT storyline.

Human nature is dualistic - we have physical bodies and an intellectual/spiritual capacity that allows us to to produce other worlds than the physical world that we inhabit. However, those theological or spiritual worlds can only be intellectual counterparts to what we know from the physical/material world - if they are to have any relevance at all. (putting flights of pure fantasy aside...)As Paul himself does with the Jerusalem above. So, if Paul is creating a spiritual construct of a Jesus Christ figure - then the follow on from that is a Jesus figure with a veneer of historicity, an assumed humanity. Paul is giving primary focus to the spiritual - he is working downwards not upwards. (As in the Word became flesh). The historical Jesus theory is working upwards - from the flesh to the spirit. Paul is working from the spirit to the assumed humanity - the veneer of humanity of a mythological spiritual creation. Paul can do nothing else - no magic tricks here. It is our evolutionary bodies that have enabled our intellectual/spiritual capacity. It cannot work the other way around. Our intellect, or spirituality, however great its achievements, is constrained by our physicality. Paul's spirituality does not need a human, a historical Jesus - but it does need a Jesus figure with a veneer of historicity, a veneer of humanity. Paul's spirituality has to take cognizances of our human nature - but that only requires that his spirituality assumes a humanity for his Jesus figure not demonstrates a humanity, not evidences a historical humanity.

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The assumed humanity, a veneer of humanity, is as much a theological story as is the assumed humanity of the sons of god that married the daughters of men in the days of Noah.

I agree that Paul essentially gives a theological outline rather than a biographical one. In nearly all cases, Paul is not giving the details for the sake of giving the details, but as part of a point (usually theological) that he is making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

To postulate a historical Jesus you need historical verification not NT storyline.

Well, I don't think I need historical verification in order to postulate a historical Jesus. I think it comes down to probabilities. If "seed of David" and "first-fruits" mean what I think they mean with regards to humanity and timing, then I think that is a strong case for historicity. There would still be a question of why Paul is silent, even so.

maryhelena · 06-19-2010, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The assumed humanity, a veneer of humanity, is as much a theological story as is the assumed humanity of the sons of god that married the daughters of men in the days of Noah.

I agree that Paul essentially gives a theological outline rather than a biographical one. In nearly all cases, Paul is not giving the details for the sake of giving the details, but as part of a point (usually theological) that he is making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

To postulate a historical Jesus you need historical verification not NT storyline.

Well, I don't think I need historical verification in order to postulate a historical Jesus. I think it comes down to probabilities. If "seed of David" and "first-fruits" mean what I think they mean with regards to humanity and timing, then I think that is a strong case for historicity. There would still be a question of why Paul is silent, even so.

Quote:

The Free Online Dictionary

pos·tu·late (psch-lt)
tr.v. pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing, pos·tu·lates
1. To make claim for; demand.
2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume.
n. (psch-lt, -lt)
1. Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument: "the postulate that there is little moral difference between the superpowers" (Henry A. Kissinger).
2. A fundamental element; a basic principle.
3. Mathematics An axiom.
4. A requirement; a prerequisite.

As far as I can read this - to postulate something, in its basic meaning, is to make a claim, to assert the truth, to assume, to take for granted.

So, unless one wants to talk off the top of ones head - if one is going to postulate something or another - it's best to have some backup!

And in regard to a historical Jesus - nothing there but interpretations of a storyline. Interpretations that are two a penny...Which is why, years ago, I decided that the fact that one can play any old tune on the Bible, that its necessary to look elsewhere if one wants to look for historicity of any of its contents.

But if playing some version of Bible thumping is your thing - then play on....and I'll just watch the never ending game from the sidelines.....

Later addition:

A suggestion: Instead of attempting to tease out, untangle, some history from Paul's theology - rather consider the history of the early 1st century. And endeavor to see if there is any possibilities within that history that could have led to Paul developing, creating, the Jesus Christ theology that he did. Tease out, interpret, the theology from the relevant history rather than trying to tease out the history from Paul's theology/spirituality.

Steven Carr · 06-19-2010, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Paul even argues that Jesus (nor any apostles) did no miracles, in opposition to the gospel narratives:

Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles!
----
1 Cor 1:22-23
22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

Slightly tangential: Paul does claim miracles occurring in the early church, including apparently by himself:

Rom 15:
18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

No mention of any miracles or healings by Jesus.

Incidentally, you missed out the next bit where Paul explains he preached in Jerusalem as that was one of the places where Christ was not known.

'So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known,....'

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Incidentally, you missed out the next bit where Paul explains he preached in Jerusalem as that was one of the places where Christ was not known.

'So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known,....'

That's interesting. What do you make of that?

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, unless one wants to talk off the top of ones head - if one is going to postulate something or another - it's best to have some backup!

I thought I had. :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

But if playing some version of Bible thumping is your thing - then play on....and I'll just watch the never ending game from the sidelines.....

What 'Bible thumping'? I'm saying we need to read Paul for Paul, and not read Gospel details into him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

A suggestion: Instead of attempting to tease out, untangle, some history from Paul's theology - rather consider the history of the early 1st century. And endeavor to see if there is any possibilities within that history that could have led to Paul developing, creating, the Jesus Christ theology that he did. Tease out, interpret, the theology from the relevant history rather than trying to tease out the history from Paul's theology/spirituality.

I agree 100%. I'm more interested in the metaphysics and the theology in Paul rather than the history in Paul. (I think Paul is more interested in that also.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.