dog-on

Hebrews 12:22-24

22But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

You sure the reference could only mean Jerusalem? Even biblically?

The mystery didn't reveal that. Maybe in Paul's third heaven? :huh:

Then you are selectively editing the text to your own liking in order to create a historical person. Don't forget the "person" that is being described. As you say, "there appears to be no reason to interpret it in a way different to how it appears".

Political reasons, mainly. Something about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

One plausible story goes something like this.

There were different groups running around with a version of JC on their banner. One group started to pull ahead and become dominant. By this time, however, there were multiple "scriptures" held by the different groups. The smart thing to do would be to "incorporate" the scriptures into your own, kind of the "big tent" strategy. Small changes to de-hereticize(???) these works could be made. In the end, both the scriptures and, (more importantly), the congregations could be integrated.

Paul tells us that the mystery has been revealed through the scriptures. I'd bet my paycheck on the fact that those references could be found in the OT.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I think that Paul is referring to the earthly Jerusalem here. As I said earlier, if you believe that Paul is referring to the Heavenly Jerusalem, then this means that Paul is claiming that Jesus was crucified in heaven. Are you saying then that Paul believed that the demiurge crucified Jesus in heaven, amongst the angels, in the city of the living God? You have to admit that it sounds adhoc. (Doherty himself tried to get around this by positing a "fleshly sublunar realm", but there is no evidence that such a belief existed). Do you have any evidence from primary sources to support that anyone could have thought this?

I'm sure you could. But that doesn't answer the question. If Jesus is described as being a descendent of David and Abraham, doesn't that suggest strongly that Paul regarded Jesus as historical? Can you suggest an alternate reading?

dog-on

Show me where Paul says the Jesus was crucified in Zion. As far as I can see, he doesn't. You are reading that into the text. Paul only says that he "was" crucified...Christ and him crucified,...or something.

Do you think that Paul's view of the world must make sense to modern rational people? It is very probable that, if one were to have a discussion with the guy, one would come away thinking that this guy was completely nuts! The fact is that Paul doesn't say where Christ got crucified.

Why couldn't the crucifixion happen in one of the heavens? Paul obviously believed that such places existed. Sadly, Paul is not clear on this subject, (as one may expect from these types of writings..).

You are trying to make Paul a modern thinking person. Reading his works, I would beg to differ with this characterization of the man. If those passages are original to Paul, the reason for their presence is simply because that is part of the revealed mystery. It doesn't need to make sense in any modern sense of the word. Paul doesn't need to tie the story together. It simply is as was revealed through the scriptures and visions. Thus there is probably no reason to expect Paul to add any other "earthly" details about his deity and, of course, he doesn't.

GakuseiDon

In fact, I think he does:

First, Paul says that "Christ crucified" is a stumbling block:
1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness

Then, he quotes scriptures to say that the stumbling block was in Zion (Jerusalem):
Rom 9:32 For they [Israel] stumbled at that stumbling stone.
Rom 9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame".

What does Rom 9:33 mean in this context, if Paul isn't claiming that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem?

Of course, it is possible that Paul believed that Jesus was crucified in heaven. You are right, we can't assume that Paul thinks like a modern person. That's why it's important that you can provide primary sources backing up your claim that Jesus could have been crucified in the city of the Living God. From what we know, Middle Platonists believed that the supra-lunar realm was perfect and unchanging, so a belief that crucifixion could have taken place there goes against it. (Thus Doherty and his crucifixion in a "fleshly sublunar realm").

So, while it is possible that Paul believed that Jesus was crucified in heaven, it doesn't match with what people thought of that time, thus such a reading would be less preferred than an earthly Jerusalem. The sublunar realm (which incorporates earth) was the only place that such activities could have taken place. Do you have any evidence that someone of Paul's time could have thought that the supra-lunar realm was able to host such an activity? If not, then the stronger conclusion weighs in on Paul referring to the earthly Jerusalem.

I'm not trying to make Paul a modern thinking person. It doesn't have to make sense to us, but it SHOULD make sense based on our understanding of how people thought in Paul's time. If you have evidence with regards to that, by all means present it. Otherwise, how do you rule out that when Jesus is described as being a descendant of David and Abraham, this doesn't provide strong evidence of Paul's belief in Jesus's historicity? How do you rule this out as the stronger alternative? And WHAT is the alternative?

dog-on

Paul is referring to the Jewish Law in the Romans passage, not to the crucifixion.

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[m]

I am still unsure why you think Paul believed that Christ was crucified in any specific place, from the text itself. It only says Christ crucified, it doesn't say Christ crucified at this place, on this day, at this time, etc... Maybe in the original mystery religion, such detail was unnecessary and not expected by the followers.

You then need to explain the mentality of adherents to (first) century mystery religions. From the text itself, it appears that such detail is superfluous to the requirements of the cult. We assume differently, in part due to the gospels and in part, due to our own thought process. I would make no such assumption for Paul and his followers.

S.C.Carlson

Paul wrote Hebrews???

dog-on

Touche!

(He did for the sake of this discussion...)... :Cheeky:

Chris Weimer

Way to distort my words. I didn't even say the word "obvious" at all. What I'm saying is that there are documents which state that someone named Jesus Christ lived and died in the Levant. You can't say that they don't, because they do. Now, you say they're not reliable, so they shouldn't be trusted. This hasn't been shown to be true. The Gospels, Paul, the early Christian tradition, none of it has been dealt with by you. You just hand wave it away as though it never existed. It exists - critically examine it!

First of all, Jesi is not the correct plural. Its Jesuses, or in in the Latin, merely Jesus (long u).

Next, I didn't even say anything about no ambiguity, or obviousness of my position. If you read what I wrote and you quoted, I said that you're not dealing with the evidence. I never once even hinted that the evidence was obvious. I said deal with the evidence. You're not doing that.

Anyone can handwave the evidence away. I can say nanny-nanny to Lucretius as well. All one would have to do is say that the Epicureans interpolated Cicero, and that Donatus and Jerome are hundreds of years too late to be reliable.

You see, not every ancient historical figure is attested by archaeological evidence, or popular enough to be mentioned by many contemporaries. The evidence can't merely be dismissed, but accounted for. If you can't do that, then you have to accept tradition. You're forgetting that tradition itself is evidence. Oral tradition was a living entity then - we have statements from the early Christians who say they knew disciples of Jesus - how do you deal with it?

I hope you begin to see the fallacious nature of your remarks now. Mythicism might well be a viable theory, but not in the way you're doing. You're not arguing for mythicism, you're just killing history.

Chris Weimer

Again - Jesi is not correct.

The Gospels provide evidence of someone named Jesus living. My own personal bias rules out anyone being God, so obviously there's something behind that facade.

The Ancient Egyptians thought their pharoahs to be divine - did they just not exist either? People have called Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, the Emperors of Japan all gods - non-existent as well?

Finally, there are more gospels than the four. You are violating April DeConick's first principle of historical hermeneutics - you are privileging the Christian canon over, say, the Ebionite gospels which state that Jesus was merely a man, as GakuseiDon pointed out, or the Mandaean gospels which state that Jesus was a man who perverted John the Baptist's real good news.

spamandham

Paul's writings could at best be sufficient to prove that Paul believed Jesus had been an actual man. But Paul is himself a convert to a pre-existing religion, for which we have little (no?) information prior to Paul. We don't know how long that religion had been around or how it originated. The mere fact that someone believed that some other guy died on a cross and was resurrected, is not a very compelling argument for the existence of that other guy.

Paul's Jesus is already highly legendary. Paul is mum about all aspects of the human character Jesus. Presumably, this is because Paul doesn't know any such details. All he knows is the legend.