Chunk

Yes I have, and Ive heard that arguement a lot too.

I think you missed the main point I was trying to make though.

Also, surely they would have been known to be fiction at the time.

With Scientology, its being portrayed as true. If the gospels were written as fiction, why wouldnt it be obvious to everyone that they were fiction? It makes no sense to write fiction and not tell anyone, you might as well tell them its fact.

Cue the "How will people in 2000 years know Star Wars was fiction" line ...

Llyricist

well you may have heard it, but do you understand it?

Could be, since I did not even detect one.

Also, surely Dianetics and the Book of Mormon are known to be fiction right now.

Look up posts by a member called Chili (used to be Amos) for an inkling of how they can be understood as "true" metaphors.

????? I don't get this.

Chunk

Ok, sorry if I didnt make my point very well. My knowledge is lacking in comparison to most people here. I might not be using the correct terms, and I might only have a rough grasp of things, so please try and bear with me.

From what I understand, if during the time of Jesus:

Gnostics existed who believed in salvation solely through knowledge

Marcion was teaching about Christ not being the son of God

The Jews found the idea of a crucified Messiah a "stumbling block"

and a group of 12 people + paul tought about a revelation of knowledge and a messiah figure who lived in the distant past (possibly in another spiritual realm) ...

why would anyone come to write the Gospels? Would would anyone make up a recent historical figure and call him the son of God and Messiah? What would drive someone to do that?

---

Ive read some theories about why, which have lead me to these questions:

How could anyone mistake what these groups were saying, and take it to mean a physical Jesus living in the recent past? And even if they were able to make that mistake, why would the gospel they wrote ever be accepted by anyone, if it was in contrast to what everyone believed in?

On to the point about fiction and non-fiction:

Ive heard the idea of them being "faith documents", designed to create a fictional life for the Christ and that they were never intended to be taken as fact. I dont understand why this would be done. What purpose could it possibly serve?

If the gospels were written as fiction, it would make sense that they would be passed around as fiction. My point is, if thats the case, how could they come to be thought of as fact?

I think you may have answered that by pointing me the direction of Chilli.

Hope thats better.

Clivedurdle

I see it as a logical progression.

Many people are messianic, end timers, into gnosis, secret knowledge. It is easy to create visions with these mind sets. We have the example of the greeks sitting in volcanic fumes and getting dreams - everyone used divination all the time.

One specific group uses old testament Judaic themes - badly, second hand, and starts dreaming they have seen christ sacrificed in heaven and born again. God has told them the knowledge, the stuff hidden from the beginning of the world, and with the eucharist, the alchemic trick to bring about the new heaven and earth!

They interpret their visions and dreams - some happening communally with other ecstatic stuff - speaking in tongues, a few psychosomatic healings - as signs and portents that the one true god's son is coming very soon to sort everything out. Paul writes it all down very eloquently.

People start dying, Christ does not come, oops am I an idiot or have I misinterpreted things? Paul interprets this as a sin about not doing the eucharist properly. This is clear evidence that their thinking was alchemic - by not doing the spell properly they stop Christ returning! Later, people start writing stories that Jesus has already been, that it all happened on earth, and the second coming - we do not know the hour. Buddhist and cynic themes get added in to the cooking pot.

The fact that Paul is writing to what look like established congregations with heirarchies is because he is - to established diaspora jewish communities who have become more messianic than others and have this doctrine of a death and resurrection.

Have we not found clear evidence of messianic sects before Jesus is alleged to have lived? Are we sure none of those are not xian? Essenes?

Much later an emperor starts meddling!

mikem

By the time he wrote Galatians that is most certainly the case, however it is quite clear that whatever Paul's personal feelings towards the "pillars", in his dealings with them in Jerusalem he most certainly had to defer to their greater authority. He clearly needed their endorsement in order to carry on, hence the reference to running in vain . Presumably he had been told that they were less than happy with his converting gentiles, and they may well have had the authority to finish him if they so desired. His saying he went up "by revelation" was a face saving subterfuge, because basically he was s**t scared by what they might do if he didn't.

Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, but the inference is that the Jerusalem leaders had the authority to lay down whatever conditions they wished. This is not a man who is moving with equal assurance among peers, this is a craven man rescuing his career. It seems natural that once Paul had been given the endorsement he required, and the pillars had accepted him as one of their own, that he would feel confident enough to sneer at a safe distance as Galatians demonstrates. I don't know if you have the same saying in Alaska, but in GB we would say he was "biting the hand that fed him".

In Galatians Paul is not only exerting his own authority, he is also saying that his ministry carried the authority of the Jerusalem leadership. If his own authority was sufficient, I don't think that he would have bothered giving the Galatians all the preamble of his meetings with the apostles. Even so, he writes in such a way as to show that all that the Jersualem leadership were REALLY doing was recognizing that Paul had been called by God to preach to the Gentiles, whereas in reality, they were giving him PERMISSION to continue.

I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute)the gospel which I preach among the gentiles lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek"

Amaleq13

How is that "clear"? He preached for three years before talking to them and fourteen more before doing it again and, while relating the event, makes a point of indicating that their reputation didn't mean much to him. Where do you find him compelled to "defer" to them? He describes a disagreement and claims to have won the argument. Initially, all he had to do was make sure the cash flow was steady. He appears to have had significant conflict, however, with the hard-core Judaizers and that may have resulted in greater scrutiny from the Jerusalem group but no change in his practices. Did he "defer" to them and start requiring his converts to adhere to the Law? No. He continued on his merry way teaching his gospel and continued to proclaim his equal status as an apostle.

Waiting three years and a divine suggestion hardly suggests that he "needed" anything from them. I'm sure it was to his advantage to be able to state that 1) he met a couple of the Big Shots but wasn't all that impressed and 2) they said his gospel was OK as long as the $$$$ kept rolling. What he "needed" was a counter against the Judaizers.

There is no support for either portion of this speculative notion. He continued to convert gentiles to his gospel and, apparently, continued to dispute Judaizers long after his meeting.

I have no idea whether Paul really believed God told him to go and neither do you but there is no hint or suggestion of fear in his description of the event. Quite the opposite, in fact. What is supported by his letters is the idea that his conflicts with the Judaizers played a part in his "revelation" rather than any concerns about Jerusalem. IOW, they were calling into question Paul's authority to preach his gospel and he went to the Big Shots to counter them.

If one accepted their gospel and intended to join their group, sure. Paul is selling a different gospel to a different audience but obtaining an endorsement from the original group is clearly to his advantage against his competitors for the same audience.

We have it but I think it would only hold true if he withheld the money the Jerusalem group was expecting. Based on his descriptions, they don't seem to me to be particularly interested in what happens with the gentiles except when the Judaizers start complaining.

mikem

His argument is with the hardcore Judaiser as you say, however, as subsequent events as described by Paul make clear, "the certain men from James" incident, it looks to me as if Paul needed more than neutral arbitrators between himself and the hardcores. It strikes me that the sympathies of the leadership lay more with the judaising party than with him, and I believe he he had to persuade them that his ministry was legit. I deal more with that point later on.

.

Why leave it so long then? What this tells me is that the balance of power lay with the Jerusalem leadership. He had to go to them. It was certainly not the case that he went up as an equal among equals. He may have regarded himself as their equal, but if they regarded him as such, surely the "Pillars" could have just told the hardcore Judaizers to fall into line and stop making a nuisance of themselves, a directive from Peter and James should have resolved the issue once and for all, this apparently did not happen. I suggest that Paul went up to Jerusalm not only for a counter against the Judaizers, but to argue for the legitimacy of his mission.

.

I would call it a reasonable assumption. Yes Paul continued to convert gentiles, as I said in the previous post, he had the Jerusalem seal of approval, officially at least. The fact that he still continued to have trouble with Judaisers indicates I think that the Jerusalem leadership continued to be internally divided over the issue of gentile converts. As you point out, Paul was their roving purse, and that might be a factor to take into account.

That is how Paul wrote it up afterwards, but we both know when dealing with the New Testament that there are agendas to be taken into account. Paul is simply not going to tell the Galatians that he needed to settle the Jerusalem leadership to ensure that he could continue his work. My remark about face saving subterfuge should have been qualified, although I do not rule it out as a possibility. Whatever Paul may have convinced himself to be the case about his revelation, it was at bottom an act of self interest that took him to Jerusalem.

You mean the Judaizers I take it? The differences between them and Paul superficially concerned the target audience; and if Gentiles were a legitimate subjects for conversion, the entry conditions to the church. The Judaizers wanted Gentiles to become Jews first. In fact they regarded Christianity as Judaism that had recognized it's true Messiah. The question about circumcision then had deeper implications and implications for the legitimacy of what Paul was doing, as Paul was well aware. If Non Jews had to be circumcised before becoming members of the church, then they were acknowledging that faith of itself was not enough, they needed "works", ie Jewish practices, to be acceptable to God. Paul completely rejected this approach. In fact, lose on this point, and his claim to apostleship by divine revelation was also called into question.

By endorsing Paul's ministry, and allowing that non Jews did not need to follow Jewish procedures the Jerusalem leadership were accepting the legitimacy of Paul's message, and his apostleship. Had they not done so, Paul's authority as an apostle would have been undermined. Yes of course Paul wanted endorsement, it was ESSENTIAL that he obtain it, and only the Jerusalem leadeship could provide it. Boy, I bet that rankled!

You mention that Paul had been preaching his message for 17 years already. While Paul was swanning off all over Asia Minor, converting Gentiles, they were closeted in Jerusalem. We don't know how much they knew about Paul's teaching, more's the pity. My best guess is that over time as the gentile church grew, they became more aware of the serious differences between him and them. At some point, things came to a head, necessitating Paul's visit to Jerusalem.

As explained above, I don't think they were aware of the true situation, or of the implications of Paul's gospel. I don't think they can have been since he says that when he went up to Jerusalem he had a private meeting with "the Pillars", and "laid before them the gospel which I preach". That's Paul claiming the proactive role. I think it just as likely that they whisked him off somewhere and gave him a private interrogation.

My point originally was that the Jerusalem leadership had greater authority than Paul, hence his visit to Jerusalem. My argument has been that they were the final court of appeal as far as Paul's conflict with the Judaizers was concerned. And this because they were Jesus' original disciples. Paul speaks of Peter, James and John as those "reputed to be pillars". Was this a title given to them by the rest of the church because they had known Jesus? I think so.

By 'eck, you've made me work, and I'm not sure that I've dealt with your points adequately. I'm sure you'll tell me though.

Johann_Kaspar

Added bold char.
Ludicrous generalization. You need to learn more about the Jewish way of thinking.

Johann_Kaspar

Why are you assuming an Historical Paul, then?

Doug Shaver

Everything that has any connection with Christianity's origins, including all the apocryphal literature, plus everything that tells us anything about the prevailing intellectual climate of that time in that part of the world. You can't build any theory about Jesus just by proof-texting every document in which the name "Jesus" or "Christ" appears.