Vinnie

The references? I simply must have forgotten this.

We covered this a bunch of times here. Section 14 of the Jesus faq covers tomb veneration:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusfaq.html

There were sharp differences between the Pauline school and the Jerusalmen group but I think you are reaching to far.

Actually, the death of Jesus by Romans would be significant for the Jerusalem group after he died. They would have to understand why God allowed this alleged agent of God to be crucified. Form critical analysis shows that at the earliest layers the passion was understood in the sense of the suffering righteous one. Hence the psalm of lamentation ("my God my God why have you forsaken me.)"

Thomasine Christians and probably even the Q people did not put emphasis on Jesus' death. The fulcrum of faith for them was in Jesus words.

I'm convinced their wasn't one but that doesn't mean Jesus earliest followers didn't think there was one. I opt for the "visions" approach which led into the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Since no one knew what happened to the body of Jesus this was an unfalsifiable claim.

Vinnie

Gawen

Hmmm...so....here we have a group of people that believed in a resurrected man...who built a synagogue to await his return to take an earthly throne and overthrow the Romans. 12 years later we have an out-of-touch Paul, who has a vision and comes back to those in the synagogue and tells them..."Hey, you guys are doing this all wrong"?? What's wrong with this picture?
It seems to me, if Paul, a Roman, came out and said, "I was there. I saw this man crucified, dead and buried...as many others saw and the man said before he died that he would come back...and he DID! Just ask Mary. She saw it too."...would lend a lot more credence to the argument for a HJ.

Or...
"I have it from reliable sources (insert names and dates and other possible qualifying data) who was/were at the scene at the time in question, that the information I am about to relay to you as it has been relayed to me, is true...so help me God. And that I have indeed seen the messiah/saviour in a vision who conferred to me...blah blah blah."
Am I correct that there is no first hand account of the trial/crucifiction/resurrection anywhere other than the Essene account?

capnkirk

Vinnie: The references? I simply must have forgotten this.

Capnkirk: Read Acts 21:23-25

capnkirk

It is becoming painfully clear that this is too big for most people to get their mind around without taking the time to read the whole argument presented as an integrated whole. I see the same kinds of problems that the thread on Doherty is having. Pepole are looking in through a keyhole so to speak, and trying to plug in the parts they can't see...and making mistakes. That is not to put any of you down. I tend to feel just as confused over on the Philosophy threads. Some of them are so esoteric that I can't begin to follow them, and I have made a fool of myself when I thought I had an argument...that just turned out to be my own lack of contextual background.

The essential points are:

There is a huge chasm between conventional Judaic thought and Xtianity, so how did they ever get conjoined? Thinking like a detective, who had motive, means, and opportunity to accomplish this feat? The only NT candidate is Paul.

After arranging the books of the NT into chronological order, who was the first person to proclaim Jesus Christ? (it was Paul)

So, how did Paul come to have such a radical (from the Jewish POV) understanding of Jesus Christ? (this was the "visionary" JC who revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus, so "his" JC was the product of his own imagination.)

The NT says that Saul had been officially persecuting his followers, which provides the first link between Paul and a "resurrected" (historical) Jesus.

Was this Jesus a real person with real followers, or not? How can we find out?

The "official" version of Jesus' life is contained in four gospels, all written well after Paul's death, but they show signs of significant editing. Can we peel off the layers of editing and see what's underneath?

When we do, we find what looks a whole lot like a conventional Jewish messiah with 12 disciples and a number of followers. We find that Jesus was crucified (and allegedly resurrected), but that his disciples and followers were spared. What happened to them after the execution?

In Acts, we find that they have formed a synagogue and are waiting for Jesus' return (in vain, it turns out). Then they hear about Paul doing missionary work abroad in Jesus' name to Jews and Gentiles alike, along with some disquieting rumors that Paul is telling Jews that Jesus has abrogated the Torah. they summon him.

He appears, but according to Acts, the discussion is about whether Gentiles must convert to Judaism to become followers of Jesus. Paul walks out with a judgement from James requiring Gentiles to follow only the food-laws that have always been in force for "god-fearers" (Gentiles who worshiped Yahweh).

Years later, the rumors have intensified. In fact, Peter has seen the truth of the rumors personally. Paul is summoned again. This time they demand a public affirmation by Paul at the Temple that he is an observant Jew.

At the Temple, Paul is beset by rioters, and is rescued by Roman troops. This is when the Apostles find out that Paul is a Roman citizen! Ergo: he could not be an observant Jew nor a Pharisee as he has claimed. Jesus was supposed to throw off the Roman yoke, so Paul couldn't be a follower of the Jesus THEY followed. Paul was expelled.

These are the essential events presented in the light of Maccoby's exegesis. Maybe they will prove helpful in understanding how they point to the existence of a Historical Jesus (whose identity and mission were usurped by Paul who transformed him after his death into the Son of God, and endowed him with attributes very similar to the pagan deities being worshipped outside Judea.)

rlogan

Captain, the engines can't take anymore...

You raised a point I have thought about ever since I started trying to find out more about Paul.

He doesn't pass the "smell test" as far as I'm concerned. tentmaker, pseudo-sherriff, roman citizen, visionary...

So my question is more who would have the motive, means, and opportunity to create a "Paul".

I do not rule out that he created himself. In fact, his story is essentially that - he had a vision and became a different person. The creator of Scientology had a vision too, but it was money he was after.

I have that option and one more option in mind. I haven't seriously mulled it over enough to offer it up to the jeers of the learned society here though.

capnkirk

Rather than take up an inordinate amount of space here, let me direct you to a website that will address the questions you've mentioned and a lot more that you haven't thought of yet:

http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/acover_page.htm

For now, let me just say that a wholly appropriate descriptive adjective for Paul would be: "Clintonesque"

Toto

Paul does not describe himself as a Roman citizen, and it appears to be just a plot device in Acts, which is fictional. But even if he were, I don't know of any reason why a Jew could not be a Roman citizen.

The website paulproblem.faithweb.com appears to be a counter-missionary site. It has incredibly annoying graphics and a hysterical tone, but a lot of information. Unfortunately, from what I can read, it accepts too much of Acts as history (if any of it is.) If you selectively believe parts of Acts, you can come up with lots of wild stories, but there is no historical basis for any of them.

In particular This incident is part of Acts' fantasy about Paul. There is no history to be found there, no reason to think that Paul was beset by Jewish rioters or rescued by Roman troops, or that he was a Roman citizen, or that a Roman citizen could not have been a Pharisee. You can see in the way the story of Paul's escape from Damascus was changed to make the Jews the villain that the author of Acts has invented a lot of Jewish harassment of Paul. There is no reason to believe any of it.

I mean, Paul (or a later editor) boasted about being a Pharisee, to increase his stature. If you accept that this is not true, why should you believe that Paul was a Roman citizen? It is a similar sort of boast meant to increase his status and solve some plot problems in Acts.

capnkirk

Toto,

Caveat lector. Rejecting Acts en-toto (pardon the pun) is just as dangerous as reading it selectively (In fact it is just another selective reading where one deselects "all".), and for precisely the same reasons.

Toto

Captain - I disagree. Please explain why there is any danger in rejecting the historicity of Acts? Should not the burden of proof be on those who claim that there is some history in it?

We have gone through this in many prior threads. There are conflicts between Acts and Paul's letters. If there is any validity in Paul's letters as his own witness, this means that Acts is unreliable. In particular, all of the conflict between Paul and "the Jews" is suspect. Paul's being a Roman citizen is unlikely. Paul's travel to Rome is unlikely.

Since so much of the document is dubious, why do you think you can find any history in it?

capnkirk

Because there is a huge difference in tendentious composition and outright falsehood; that's why. As I demonstrated in my previous post, "deselect all" is just another selection choice. So what gives your "selective" reading any claim to privilege with reference to all others?

With regard to Acts, I see a lot of the former but in the chapters that don't claim supernatural events, not much of the latter. I can easily see the differences between Paul's self-serving accounts of his interaction with TJC, and the post-gospel apologist account in Acts (where the author had somewhat different priorities) as a reflection of their different short-term priorities...and as a means to ferret those agendas out and sift out the few kernels of fact trapped in the seams between the two versions. In layman's language it's like separate readings of the cross-filings in a divorce case. Neither is wholly true nor wholly false, but by analyzing both separately and against each other, one can get a lot closer to the objective truth.

That is hardly less sophisticated than the methodology that is evident on the link you just posted on the Earl Doherty thread.