Malachi151

Here is all of Romans 10 to make this more clear (though still muddy):

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=38994828

This is NRSV, without editing it for proper reading based on the footnotes (brothers and sisters, etc.). You can go to the link for the footnotes.

Paul is talking about the Israelites here, made clear in Romans 9.

Even when Paul says that they have heard, its still clear that he makes no connection between Jesus a person and the Jews. He quotes scripture referring to how the word has gone out to all the world, CLEARLY A NON-HISTORICAL REFERENCE, AND CLEARLY A VIEW OF CHRIST AS SUPERNATURAL, NOT A MAN.

He's quoting "Moses" and "Isaiah" here, that should tell you something!

I think that this is a very important passage, its clearly irreconcilable with a man Jesus who was known and killed by Jews in Judea.

jakejonesiv

Are you saying that the "words of Christ" are passages in the scriptures, rather than quotations from a recently living man?

That is an interesting passsage.
Does it mean that no one would ever hear of Jesus unless a preacher told them about him? But surely they knew about Jesus from the hoards of eyewitnesses that abounded in those days? They wouldn't need a preacher, there would be muliple thousands that had heard Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount, just to name one instance. Why would they pay any attention to some two-bit bald guy who claimed to have seen visions in Arabia?

Malachi151

Actually, if you read the notes you see that "word of Christ" is "word about Christ" in early sources.

That's not totally relevant, even if it were of Christ it wouldn't matter much, but "about" makes it extra interesting.

I'm saying that when Paul talks about why we should consider that the Israelis have heard about Christ he quotes scripture:

i.e., the Israelis have heard about Christ because the scripture say so, Isaiah himself says that they know about Christ, etc....

That he never says anything about Jesus making himself known here, or that he even brings up the question as to whether the Israelis know of Jesus is pretty damning here IMO.

How could this question even be raised if "the Jews killed Jesus"? How could this discussion even come up if the Gospel stories have any merit at all?

Not only was the question raised, but it was answered in such a way that the Jews never heard about Christ from Jesus himself!

jakejonesiv

But see, that is what I don't understand. if the gospels are history, why would anyone pay attention to that bandy-legged little con artist Paul? There would be thousands of witnesses saying, "Shut up chump, I was there and saw HIM. Where were you? And you are fixin' to tell me how to get saved???" Bump that lame "born of a woman" crap, I knew his Mamma.

It makes no sense.

Malachi151

Well, exactly.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jake,

The passage makes perfect sense if the orginal read "word of God" instead of "word of Christ". We may assume that the passage has been tampered with and the word "Christ" has been substituted for "God". This is the simply the best explanation for why we get so much confusion when we read the passage with the phrase "word of Christ"

The line: 16But not all have obeyed the good news;* for Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message?’ is also an interpolation. It disrupts the flow of the argument. The original read:

Quote:

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’ 17So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of the Lord

Compare

Proverbs 15.29: The LORD is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous.

30: The light of the eyes rejoices the heart, and good news refreshes the bones.

Proverbs 30.4: Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!

5: Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

What we have here is an originally jewish text that has been Christianized. This is the case generally with the New Testament.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay


[/QUOTE]

Malachi151

PJ,

This is partly true. "the word of Christ" may well have been changed from "the word of God", but the rest of the passage is still clearly talking about Christ.

The oddness of the passage is not removed, and its still incompatible with a historical Jesus.

GakuseiDon

That's a shame! I would like to know what you regard as Doherty's strongest piece of evidence is, and then try to look beyond what Doherty is claiming for it. I think you would find the exercise interesting (and yes, AFAICS you haven't done this yourself yet) But fair enough if you think that it is pointless to debate me.

I checked Doherty's website, and you seem to be referring to this one:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/DebatesAscension.htm

The source for my comments seem to be taken from these two threads:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=143542
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=144279

I was only marginally involved in the second thread. If you find any mistakes I've made, I'd be interested in seeing them. I hope you'll note that I spend time asking Doherty for evidence to back up his ideas, whereas Doherty responds by playing the "lack of imagination" and "literalism" cards. As I've always stated, it isn't a matter of whether they COULD have thought that way -- of course it is possible. It is a question of what the evidence shows how they actually DID think (See my thread on Plutarch, where I go into it in more detail).

Where there is very little evidence, we need to be even more careful in analysing what we have. Here is a reasonably representative approach by Doherty:

"As for the evidence, which Muller can’t find, and which Don dismisses or misinterprets. It is true that we don’t have a lot of evidence of these concepts in the surviving record, and much of what is there consists of ‘pointers’; knowing what we do about the dominant ideas of the time, we can deduce what they are talking about, as in 1 Corinthians 2:8, or the pre-Pauline hymn of Philippians 2:6-11. The area where we would expect to find such evidence is pretty well limited to savior-god mythology and related Gnostic philosophies. But outside of Christianity (which is a savior-god religion), there is precious little of the mystery cult record available, partly because it was secret, and partly because Christianity did its best to destroy it. The mysteries have ancient roots, and thus their mythology was an evolved hodge-podge of the primordial and the Platonic, which might not have made an efficient mix, or consistent sense, to the mind looking for a rational explanation of it all. In any case, we can’t be sure that any but a few philosophers were concerned with understanding it rationally (and not even Plutarch is fully rational by our standards). As I have said, we can’t be sure just how the average devotee-in-the-street interpreted it. But all this does not mean that they did not accept it. Much more intelligent and sophisticated minds today accept a whole lot of things which are just as unfounded and incomprehensible from a scientific point of view (and just as ridiculous) as anything the ancients may have believed in. Thus I find most of Don’s objections along these lines ill-founded.

Doherty writes about evidence in "savior-god mythology". But is there anything there that supports Doherty? Where the stories set on earth were supposed to have taken place in a non-earthly "dimension"? Or where a savior god descended from heaven and never made it to earth? You can say that I lack imagination, or you can ask any number of rhetorical questions, but at a certain point you just HAVE TO start investigating what the actual evidence is. Otherwise, how do you know that Doherty is correct?

GakuseiDon

I'm talking about the approach where, if Paul doesn't match the Gospels, then that is evidence against historicity. But if Paul does match Gospels, that's "reading the Gospels into Paul".

jakejonesiv

You do not have to make this concession. hRHMATOS CRISTOU is the Alexandrian text and the USB and newer translations use it. "Word of God" is the old school Textus Receptus and KJV.