TedM

Ok, from your site:

There are several possibilities here, NONE of which require us to conclude that Paul didn't believe Jesus had recently lived.

1. Paul's Jesus lived and was crucified but didn't minister and perform miracles in front of large crowds.

2. Paul's Jesus didn't preach about Paul's message of salvation through faith.

3. Paul is referring to the Jews that never directly heard Jesus.

4. Paul is referring to Jews who existed during his writing to the Romans some 25 years after Jesus had lived, who were not familiar with Jesus. This could include Jews not living in Israel.

5. Paul is referring in general to "all men", including the Gentiles.


Again, the assumption that Paul could only be talking about the Jesus represented in the gospel accounts. And, that Jesus' message was widely distributed. And that the 'word' is something that Jesus himself had preached. It seems to me that the "word" according to Paul is that of salvation through faith for ALL men. This salvation was through the death and resurrection of Jesus, something that Jesus well may have not talked about much (certainly GMark gives the impression that no one 'got' such a message). This well may not have been something Jesus taught or that Paul knew of Jesus teaching, so again this passage doesn't contradict a Jesus Paul had known had recently lived.


This sounds like a good argument at first, until one discovers that the gospels have Jesus use the same kind of language when discussing his own return: See my site for more.


Paul isn't always easy to understand, but my interpretation is that the 'mystery' Paul speaks of isn't that of Jesus' arrival, but rather the arrival of the gospel of salvation to ALL men through the resurrection of Jesus. Paul CLEARLY identifies this mystery in a few places. See The Mystery Revealed for more info.

Paul's mission was to preach salvation to Gentiles, something very unusual. He saw this calling as having been foretold in scriptures. Jesus doesn't say a whole lot about this in the gospels--in fact he says he came for the Jews. I therefore don't see Paul's references to the mystery to raise an expectation for Paul to have talked about Jesus' earthly revelation of such a mystery. I think Doherty misses the boat when it comes to Paul's talk about the 'mystery'.

To sum up your examples:
Romans 10: there are many reasonable interpretations other than the one you prefer

Coming vs return: other references suggest Paul's usage is reasonable even if he was thinking 'return'.

Jesus as the 'mystery'. Incorrect understanding


At least, that's how I see it. Take care,

ted

Niall Armstrong

This is where the centuries of Christian myth weigh too heavily upon our expectations. It is this myth that makes us read an earthly Christ into Paul's letters, and expect any other interpretation to have to be made more specific by Paul ("If Paul had wanted us to understand Christ as being sacrificed somewhere else than earth, then he would have had to say so.") But this is an anachronistic expectation. From what we know of Greek mysticism this kind of spelling out where mythical events were taking place was not necessary. No-one had to be told where Mithras slew the cosmic bull. It was in the mythic sphere, but people still believed that it had taken place (or was still taking place). When people invented locations for these myths (like Eleuisis for the Persephone myth), it became an important part of their religion, as a place for ritual or pilgrimage. So we can be pretty sure that Paul did not have to tell people where Christ was sacrificed. And when an earthly location was determined, we'd expect it to take on far greater significance than it does in Paul & the other Epistles (where Zion is most easily and comprehensively understood as the heavenly Jerusalem).

GakuseiDon

What is "the mythic sphere", and what sources do you have for that? AFAICT this is something that Doherty has made up to explain Paul's use of "in the flesh".

Do you think that Paul believed that Satan crucified Jesus in the heavenly Jerusalem? If not, then Paul could only have placed it on earth.

Gregg

Well, not much of the evidence for an MJ "requires" us to conclude this. It's all the evidence put together that pulls many people toward this conclusion. For example, there being a historical Jesus leads you to expect to find some evidence of him existing as an actual person and not just a figure of faith, but outside the gospels there is no apparent "historical" information about Jesus. He seemingly moved immediately from being whatever he actually was to being a pre-existent divine being (as seen from the hymn in Philippians), a kind of combined Logos/Son of Man/dying-rising savior god, with no time in-between for legend and mythology to build up around him.

Are there any real precedents for this? Sure, men got deified in those days, but they were men who had accomplished great things in their lifetimes, and we don't have examples of Jews deifying other Jews in the way Jesus was deified. Lots of Jewish men were crucified, why was Jesus given special treatment? If the "Teacher of Righteousness" in the Dead Sea Scrolls is a real person, it's true he's never spoken of as a person, but he's not spoken of as a pre-existent divine being either.

Is there a hint that Jews ever regarded anyone else as the Christ? Well, Paul tells his readers to beware of those who preach "another Jesus," perhaps one that was not crucified. But AFAIK, there's no evidence for Jewish groups (other than the Christians) that were in the habit of deifying their teachers, cult leaders, rebel chieftains, or whatever, crucified or not.

So what did he do, exactly, to get himself crucified? Why does nobody tell us this except "Mark" some 50 years later? And Mark's account is not believable, since the Romans would not have crucified a man for blasphemy against the Jewish religion at the behest of the Jews ... they would have crucified him for sedition.

It's true that the MJ thesis has more difficulty proving the non-existence of a Jesus that didn't do anything the gospels say he did, but a Jesus who seemingly did not say or do anything except, apparently, tell his followers to eat bread in remembrance of him and then commit an act that got him arrested and crucified, presents another set of problems. Once again, it's not so much that the given passage "doesn't contradict" a historical Jesus. It's when it's put together with other evidence to form a comprehensive picture that the MJ thesis becomes compelling.

Do you really think Doherty has not "discovered" this fact yet? It's actually not surprising if the gospel writers did not believe Jesus had really been on Earth, if they were writing allegorical stories about the divine Christ. They wouldn't have had any more reason to write about his "second coming" than Paul did.

I've had a discussion about this before and I don't think you're entirely correct, but I'll have to come back to it later ... need to get to work!

Duke Leto

Right. So can we get back on topic?

TedM

Right. So can we get back on topic?

Sorry Duke, if you feel your questions weren't sufficiently answered. Here' s my understanding of the JP position on them:

Other factors would include Hellenistic influences--activities in the other "sphere" by gods (for which the evidence is very weak--see Don G's postings) and the practice of sacrifice for atonement, which existed throughout many cultures, and especially the Jewish one. Put the two together and you get a god who was killed in another sphere.

Two original believers in the above ideas.

I'm not sure the Doherty answer to this one. If GMark is a play then he can put whatever actors in it he wants. Since Peter and Cephas are interchangeable AND James and John were also prominent in the early Jewish Christian movement (Galations) it is likely that Mark was intentionally patterning Peter after Cephas. Other gods interacted with those on earth, so Jesus could too. Why Peter was seen as so ignorant of Jesus' teachings in GMark is the subject of a lot of discussion, but some here see it as a political issue by Mark.

I'd like to respond to some of the other off-topic posts, but if you prefer will refrain.

ted

TedM

Right. So can we get back on topic?

Sorry Duke, if you feel your questions weren't sufficiently answered. Here' s my understanding of the JP position on them:

Other factors would include Hellenistic influences--activities in the other "sphere" by gods and the practice of sacrifice for atonement, which existed throughout many cultures, and especially the Jewish one. The portrayal of the Sacrificial Servant in Isaiah 53 would seem to me to be very helpful for bolstering this idea. Put the two ideas together and you get a man/god who was killed in another sphere in order to atone for Israel's sins.

Two original believers in the above ideas.

I'm not sure the Doherty answer to this one. If GMark is a play then he can put whatever actors in it he wants. Since Peter and Cephas are interchangeable AND James and John were also prominent in the early Jewish Christian movement (Galations) it is likely that Mark was intentionally patterning Peter after Cephas. Other gods interacted with those on earth, so Jesus could too. Why Peter was seen as so ignorant of Jesus' teachings in GMark is the subject of a lot of discussion, but some here see it as a political issue by Mark.

ted

Solo

Two things are missing in consideration of the "immediate move". 1) the apocalyptic subculture in which the ideas about SoM and Jesus propagate expects the world to end imminently. The meeting ground for opinions is the belief that all live "in the last days". 2) The ideas that Paul espoused were his revelation, which he believed came directly from God. They were mediated by no human agency. Further, Paul's lack of interest in the earthly career of Jesus is conditioned by his "gospel" dispute with the Nazarene church (or its Jesus-professing branch). Paul directly attacks some views which were later espoused by the gospel Jesus, and which may well have originated with a minor prophetic figure of history.

1) the most serious disagreement is the nature of resurrection. Passages like Mark 12:18-27, Jesus answer to the Saducees on married life in resurrection, Jesus Q saying, "let the dead bury their dead" or Rev 2:11 ("those who conquer shall not be hurt by the second death") or Luke's "kingdom within" (17:20-21) clearly point to a cultic definition of "death", not a real one. Paul's view of resurrection clashes with this tradition head on. (1 Cr 15:42-58). Paul was diametrically opposed to the idea that resurrection and the kingdom happen to people "in flesh" and on earth. Now then, when Paul says that he knew Jesus after the flesh but knows him as such no longer, and that he does not want to know other Jesus than the one crucified, he is asserting his own ministry of "last days".

2) Paul is very skeptical of the "power of Pneuma" to produce miracles and divine utterance. He dismissed the import of faith having miraculous properties 1 Cr 13:1-2. The "faith moving mountains" again may well have been a saying of the historical Jesus figure.

3) Paul is clearly distraught by the behaviour of some of the Jesus following, their what-me-worry-the-end-is here. In 1 Cr 9, he takes issue with the idleness of the other apostles, and does so very cleverly, so as not to offend a possibly genuine Jesus-sayings tradition (Mt 6:26). However, he has no compunction to denounce lack of respect to one's parents (Rom 1:30), when HJ may well have made the displacement of filial piety a condition of discipleship (Mt 10:37-38, Lk 14:26-27)

No precedent either in Judaism for the belief that the world is on the brink.

....public violence in the Temple would have been seen as such.

Jiri

Doug Shaver

It makes sense to me, and I have an article on my Web site explaining why: http://dougshaver.com/christ/ahistor/ahistor1.htm

A thorough response on my part would, obviously, constitute a major derailing of this thread.

It will also take a major investment of my time, but I believe I can work it into my schedule. When I'm done with my analysis, I'll post it on my site as a supplement to the aforementioned, with a notification here that it's ready for your review and comment.

TedM

Thanks Doug. I'll take a look.

Only if you want to Doug. Huffman took on #1, and Vork took on the Judas one. Doherty also addressed a few things. I was not persuaded much.

take care,

ted