bacht

According to the New Testament, Jesus was the most unique person in the history of the world, a real divine man (not a fake like the pagans worship). Christians want to retain this identification while simultaneously using regular historical criteria to establish "proof" of Jesus' life on earth. To me these are contradictory ideas.

It's much easier to imagine a spiritual Christ who inspires faith than to imagine an executed criminal "in disguise" (Mark's messianic secret) who rises to glory after fooling all the bad guys here and in heaven (for me there's no heaven or resurrection, so all that's left is an implausible story believed by gullible people, hardly a new phenomenon in human history).

Skeptics won't buy any of this, and believers won't question any of it. Some kind of stand-off I guess.

Anat

I don't even know if 'circle drawer' is the correct translation of the name. 'm'agel' can also be derived from 'ma'agila' meaning 'rolling pin' - in this case one used to roll clay on roofs to make them water-tight. Someone who made a living repairing roofs and sealing them before the rainy season would become associated with predicting and bringing on rain. There aren't that many references about him, as far as I remember he hardly takes up a page or two in Bialik and Ravnitzki's 'Sefer Ha'agada'. There was the story about how he was asked to pray for rain and was almost excommunicated for being too successful and the one about him sleeping for 70 years and falling to depression when nobody recognized him. If there was a 'historical core' to him it was probably much removed from these stories.

spamandham

Not surprising, I suppose, since some portion of 1 Cor 15 is already highly suspicious (which includes the mention of the 12), having been discussed on these boards many times.

spin

Yes, I think you misunderstand Paul's rhetoric. This is what I said back in February to you:

You seem to believe that he admits to his Corinthians that he made a mistake, didn't have the right idea. You must be joking on two accounts: 1) he doesn't make such mistakes (I thought you were aware of glimpses of his psychological make-up), and 2) he's the one advocating the spiritual approach as opposed to his opponents such as seen in Galatians. He tells the Galatians "live by the spirit" (5:16). He tells the Corinthians the same in 2 C 5:16 but using round-about rhetoric. He generally treats the Corinthians very differently from the Galatians.

You had difficulty understanding my comment, ie that he had no interest in indicating his learning about Jesus from other people. He was talking about something different, trying to teach the Corinthians how they should live, ie "by the spirit". The persistent use of "we" provides the Corinthian reader with a standard to live up to and to take it as literal in 2 Cor 5:16 misunderstands the text.

I.e. he wasn't going to talk about anything else by not admitting to know anything else. The only thing he was prepared to talk about was Jesus Christ and him crucified.

No, it doesn't.

I personally don't think Paul saw Jesus as mythical.

I don't know what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with me. You are confusing me with mythicists.

And this is just silly. Paul believed in a real Jesus. As he never knew a Jesus, he is certainly not a witness to him. (You have a weird idea as to what "witness" means.)

As you have been told, Paul claims his gospel of Jesus came not from people but through revelation from god, who revealed Jesus to him. Try believing him.


spin

spamandham

For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

"Paul" is not talking about physical death, because obviously, not everyone had physically died. He's using death as a metaphor for giving up concern for worldly ways. The Christ Paul is talking about here that was given up, is the Jewish Messiah idea, which was traded in for a spiritual Christ. The Christ being spoken of here is not a human being of recent history named Jesus of Nazareth, it's an inner state of being.

In other places, such as 1 Cor 15, we see "Paul" reciting creeds that strongly suggest his Christ is the same Jesus depicted in the Gospels. This oddity is easily explained by positing multiple authors - an idea we should not be biased against.

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

Obviously the world was not crucified, and Paul knows that. Further, it is impossible for Paul to have been crucified and be writing this. So clearly, Paul is using 'crucify' in a figurative sense, and it isn't hard to figure out what that sense is either; it's a metaphor for separating oneself from worldly concerns.

Is Paul equivocating an earthly crucifixion of one Jesus of Nazareth with spiritual crucifixion, or was Paul's Christ only ever crucified in a spiritual sense?

Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!

Paul prefaces his list of sufferings with "so you're impressed with the deceitful exploitive boasting of fools? Fine then, if that's what you want..."

I take his list of sufferings with a grain of salt after such a disclaimer.

avi

In this thread posing the question of why the gospel of Mark, and the letters of Paul, taken together, could not suffice to conclude that there probably existed a historical Jesus of Nazareth or Capernum, or wherever, we find the following absurd statement:

Utter nonsense. Should one bother to read any more of your text?
Aristarchus!!!!

Ok, I will try one more passage, maybe you were sleepy when you wrote the first one....

How stupid can a person be, to attempt sarcasm about something as atrocious as the murder of innocents? Yes, of course, we may not be too clever, either, though, I think most of us understand that neither Voltaire nor Spinoza were burned at the stake, but how many others were????
Start with those poor innocents, murdered by the Catholic villain Thomas More, who condemned several people to execution by burning them alive, though their crime consisted of nothing more than possessing a bible translated into English.

Before you insult me further, allow me to educate you, about one of my heroes, who suffered exactly that fate, burning to death at the hands of your fellow true believers:
Michael Servetus.

In other words, watch out for your sarcasm, plenty of decent people, including some very well educated folks, not ignoramuses who spout nonsense at every opportunity, were executed by your Catholic church.

You want sarcasm, renassault, I will give you sarcasm.
you and all the other true believers. you and all the rest who imagine that Servetus' death was justified.



Let me guess: the "ren" of renassault, refers, not as spin had inferred, to the French automaker, but rather to the French word: renaissance, rebirth, and the assault, represents your determination to bring your M16 to the forum. I am ready, mister rebirth, for you to make an assault. Come and get me. I am standing right here in front of you.

"basic fact as the existence of jesus" Where's the evidence? This thread asks whether the writings of Paul and Mark alone suffice to make that case, and it is obvious to 99% of the respondents, that the answer to that question is NO.

Can you name ONE person, renassault, on the planet earth, at any time in the planet's history, just ONE person would suffice, who actually met Jesus of Nazareth or Capernum or wherever, face to face, and who then, subsequently wrote, in Greek, or any other language, his or her impressions of aforesaid Jesus, i.e. eyewitness testimony?

with great hostility, and much anger,

Avi

jakejonesiv

Hi GakuseiDon,

I know you are trying to word your observations as neutrally as possible, so i am asking for a clarification.

You state that you are assuming that the reactions of later readers of a document of unknown origin indicates that the events related therein were "written to" contain valid historical information.

Is that the same thing as assuming that the gospel of Mark does in fact contain valid historical information, or is you argument more nuanced than that?

Best,
Jake

andrewcriddle

From Honi The Circle Drawer Mishnah Taanit 3:8 Apart from rabbinic legends Honi is mentioned by Josephus Antiquities 14 as Onias whose prayers brought rain and who was killed for refusing to use his powers in a civil war.

Presumably there is some historical core.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Ar-Be/Atlas.html

Is the quality of the story any value in deciding if it has historical elements?

aa5874

Of course, the Pauline writer is making reference to the PHYSICAL death of Jesus Christ, the God/man, of the NT. The Pauline writings, as canonised, represents the Jesus in the Gospels where he was crucified, died and resurrected.

All over the Epistles the Pauline writer claimed Jesus died and resurrected.

Romans 1.1-5
Positing multiple authors cannot be EASILY explained without the evidence. It cannot be shown that the author Romans 1.1-4 could not have written 1 Corinthians 15 or 2 Corinthians 5.