Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

"Mythical" may be a misleading term here. I think Jesus was very real to Paul and the others, but in the spirit world, beyond normal time and space.

Oh please, not this again. Why not just say that Horus, Krishna and Mithras were all virgin-born and crucified, and Christians copied that? It has the same validity.

Back then, they believed that you had: the earth; the air where demons dwelt ("the lower heavens"); and the world above the firmament where God and His angels dwelt ("the higher heavens").

The chances of people back then believing that Satan went up into the higher heavens -- the realm of God Himself -- and crucified the Son of God is about zero. The chances of people thinking back then that a "fleshly" spiritual entity doing anything except on earth is about zero.

Can you give an example from the literature of the time that talked of a "the spirit world, beyond normal time and space" where Satan could crucify the Son of God? (And if you want to use Doherty's fantastical reconstruction of the Ascension of Isaiah, then at least note that there is no such extant manuscript).

DCHindley · 10-06-2009, 03:45 PM

I thought this was a very good post. It encapsulates the facts he mentions about Jesus, and some of the end time thinking about him as well, found in the epitles of Paul pretty well.

Thank you!

Any suggestions as to how Paul (or whoever) came by the beliefs you mention in the latter half of your post? (Please don't say "by revelation" or we may as well bring back the Urantia Book

)

Had he heard certain things about this Jesus guy - that he spoke about a coming kingdom of God, that he was executed by the Romans, that his body could not be found - and rationalized the discordant facts (i.e., had a revelation that "explained" it all in his mind) into a special case resurrection that preceded the general resurrection?

It is only a leap and a bound for Paul (or whoever) to spin that to include thinking of Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice that replaced the ones that the Jewish High Priest used to perform on the Day of Atonement and the other sacrifices that were no longer being performed on account of a destroyed temple.

DCH (breaking down and using a rare emoticon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Along with a "historical" Jesus, Paul thought there was a historical Adam, a historical Eve, a historical Moses, a historical Joshua, and every other Biblical character. And just like Jesus, he is not a witness to any these characters. From my first post in this thread, I don't see how you can argue that just because someone thinks there was a living person behind the name, that this is evidence that this person existed.

If Paul is evidence for the existence of a "historical" Jesus, the Paul is evidence for a historical Adam.

It depends on when Paul thought that Jesus lived. If Paul indicates that Jesus was someone who lived fairly recently, and Mark places Jesus in the same time frame, then we have evidence much stronger than for someone they both believed lived 500 years prior.

So, when did Paul probably believe that Jesus lived? I think the strongest case is for "fairly recently". I took these notes from a post by Ben Smith. Note that the timing works for some points regardless of whether Jesus was a man or some "cosmic spirit":

1. Jesus must have lived after Adam, since Paul calls him the latter Adam (1 Corinthians 15.22, 45).

2. Jesus must have lived after Abraham, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of Abraham (Galatians 3.16).

3. Jesus must have lived after Moses, since Paul says that he was the end of the law of Moses (Romans 10.4-5).

4. Jesus must have lived after David, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of David (Romans 1.4).

Evidence that Paul regarded Jesus as having lived recently, within living memory, as an older contemporary:

1. Paul believes he is living in the end times (1 Corinthians 10.11), that he himself (1 Thessalonians 4.15; 1 Corinthians 15.51) or at least his converts (1 Thessalonians 5.23; 2 Corinthians 4.14) might well live to see the parousia. Paul also believes that the resurrection of Jesus was not just an ordinary resuscitation of the kind Elijah or Elisha supposedly wrought; it was the first instance of the general resurrection from the dead at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 15.13, 20-28). When, then, does Paul think Jesus rose from the dead? If, for Paul, he rose from the dead at some point in the indeterminate past, then we must explain either (A) why Paul thought the general resurrection had begun (with Jesus) well before the end times or (B) why Paul regarded the end times as a span of time stretching from the misty past all the way to the present. If, however, Paul regarded the resurrection of Jesus as a recent phenomenon, all is explained. The resurrection of Jesus was the beginning of the general resurrection and thus the ultimate sign that the end times were underway.

2. Paul expects that he might see the general resurrection in his own lifetime (1 Corinthians 15.51). He also calls Jesus the firstfruits of that resurrection. Since the firstfruits of the harvest precede the main harvest itself by only a short time, the very metaphor works better with a short time between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the rest of the dead, implying that the resurrection of Jesus was recent for Paul.

3. There is, for Paul, no generation gap between the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15.4). Furthermore, there is no generation gap between the recipients of the resurrection appearances and Paul himself; he is personally acquainted with the first recipient of a resurrection appearance (1 Corinthians 15.5; Galatians 1.18). Is there a gap between the resurrection and the first appearance? The flow of 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 would certainly not suggest one; however, I believe we can go further.

Paul claims that Jesus was the end of the law for those who have faith (Romans 10.4), that he was raised from the dead in order to justify humans (Romans 4.25), and that this justification comes by faith (Romans 5.1) in Jesus (Romans 3.22). Paul also claims that no one can have faith unless he first hears the gospel from a preacher (Romans 10.14) who is sent (Romans 10.15). Finally, Paul acknowledges that it was at the present time (Romans 3.26) that God showed forth his justice apart from the law (Romans 3.21), and that the sent ones, the apostles, were to come last of all (1 Corinthians 4.9); he also implies that the resurrection appearances were the occasion of the sending out of apostles (1 Corinthians 9.1; 15.7, 9; Galatians 1.15-16). If we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised in the distant past but only recently revealed to the apostles, we must take pains to account for this gap; why, for Paul, did Jesus die in order to end the law and justify humans but then wait indefinitely before making this justification available to humans? If, however, we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised recently, shortly before appearing to all the apostles, all is explained. That was the right time (Romans 5.6).

4. Paul writes that God sent forth his son to redeem those under the law in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4). It is easier to suppose that, for Paul, the fullness of time had some direct correspondence to the end of the ages (1 Corinthians 10.11) than to imagine that the fullness of time came, Jesus died, and then everybody had to wait another long expanse of time for the death to actually apply to humanity.

spin · 10-06-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Paul claims his knowledge through revelation and scripture.

No, he doesn't. He claims his gospel was obtained through Christ and no man.

Paul doesn't call it "his gospel", but "the gospel of Christ" (Gal 1:7 and elsewhere), "the gospel that was proclaimed to me" (Gal 1:11). He doesn't see it as his gospel, but as the only message acceptable.

He also claims that god revealed Jesus to him (Gal 1:15-16), so he does in fact claim his knowledge is through revelation, not just a gospel message, but knowledge of Jesus himself. What did god reveal? Jesus -- not further information.

spin

spamandham · 10-06-2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Thanks presumably to the revelation from Christ, yes.

Considering that Paul describes his revelation in the form of a vision, it's safe to say that his imagination concocted it all. Was it concocted first and then he went searching the scriptures, or the other way around? Obviously there's no way of knowing, but it's valid to take Paul at his word when he describes portions as originating in scripture, particularly since he does not make that argument for all of his gospel, but just part of it.

Quote:

Paul persecuted before he converted and it is entirely valid and logical to assume he knew what they believed. It makes no sense to pretend he knew nothing about the beliefs he persecuted.

Certainly Paul would have known why he was persecuting those he persecuted, but how does that imply that he knew more about Jesus than he has revealed?

I think Paul makes it pretty clear why he was persecuting them, and it has nothing to do with any particular Jesus beliefs:

Gal. 1:13-14

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

spin · 10-06-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

If Paul is evidence for the existence of a "historical" Jesus, the Paul is evidence for a historical Adam.

It depends on when Paul thought that Jesus lived. If Paul indicates that Jesus was someone who lived fairly recently, and Mark places Jesus in the same time frame, then we have evidence much stronger than for someone they both believed lived 500 years prior....snip....

I think show_no_mercy is flirting with the same problem I point at you in his use of "historical", but it seems to be more ironic than earnest. However, you aren't dealing with the purpose I think you had in mind, ie to show how Paul can be used as a historical source for a real Jesus. All you seem to be doing is showing that Paul can have a vague timetable for his beliefs about a real Jesus. This as I understand it is all inconsequential. It doesn't matter when Paul thinks his Jesus did his thing. Paul as I've already said never met the Jesus of the message he is preaching. He also says that his knowledge of Jesus came from a revelation. Put him in a courtroom, "judge, I introduce Paul as a witness for the case that Jesus was a historical figure" and the judge will respond "His testimony is of no value. How does he know about this supposedly real Jesus? He admits he never met him! He invalidates himself as a witness."

spin

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Have you or anyone else ever mounted a case for them being interpolations? I'd like to see how they handle statements like this:

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came

...

Jake Jones has made this argument. I don't have a link to where he has argued this, but perhaps he will see this and drop by, or you can PM him: jakejonesiv

or search for the threads that he started in BCH, such as this one.

Jake writes on that thread (my emphasis):

It is clear that the figure of Paul arose and held the ascendency in heretical circles, and was only grudgingly accepted by the catholics after massive changes.

The emerging catholic church absorbed the ultra-Paulinism of Marcion by redacting and rewriting the Marcionite [Paul] epistles and forging the Pastorals and Acts...

The proto-orthodox went through the process of domesticating Simon into Paul in the later half of the second century with the production of Acts, the Pastoral Epistles, and the catholic redactions to Marcion's Apostilicon.

The easiest way to combat Marcion would be to show Jesus being born of Mary. Yet Jake appears to propose that sometime after the second half of the Second Century, the proto-orthodox redacted and forged the Pauline letters, without including any of those historical details whose lack surprises us today.

Could Jake confirm that this is indeed what he is proposing?

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It depends on when Paul thought that Jesus lived. If Paul indicates that Jesus was someone who lived fairly recently, and Mark places Jesus in the same time frame, then we have evidence much stronger than for someone they both believed lived 500 years prior....snip....

I think show_no_mercy is flirting with the same problem I point at you in his use of "historical", but it seems to be more ironic than earnest. However, you aren't dealing with the purpose I think you had in mind, ie to show how Paul can be used as a historical source for a real Jesus. All you seem to be doing is showing that Paul can have a vague timetable for his beliefs about a real Jesus. This as I understand it is all inconsequential. It doesn't matter when Paul thinks his Jesus did his thing. Paul as I've already said never met the Jesus of the message he is preaching. He also says that his knowledge of Jesus came from a revelation. Put him in a courtroom, "judge, I introduce Paul as a witness for the case that Jesus was a historical figure" and the judge will respond "His testimony is of no value. How does he know about this supposedly real Jesus? He admits he never met him! He invalidates himself as a witness."

It's generally assumed that Paul knew something of Jesus Christ before converting, since he persecuted early Christians. Based on long threads where you've discussed this, I know you disagree. I think you are wrong. I'll leave it at that.

Loomis · 10-06-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... they appear to be describing someone who they thought was real

Why do you think they appear to be describing someone who they thought was real?

Let’s set aside ‘Paul’ for a while and focus on ‘Mark’.

Why do you think ‘Mark’ appears to be describing someone he thought was real?

Toto · 10-06-2009, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
The easiest way to combat Marcion would be to show Jesus being born of Mary. ...

... or just to assert that Jesus was born of a woman. (Any woman would do.)

Toto · 10-06-2009, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
3. There is, for Paul, no generation gap between the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15.4). Furthermore, there is no generation gap between the recipients of the resurrection appearances and Paul himself; he is personally acquainted with the first recipient of a resurrection appearance (1 Corinthians 15.5; Galatians 1.18). Is there a gap between the resurrection and the first appearance? The flow of 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 would certainly not suggest one;...

The argument from those who think that Jesus lived a century or so before Paul and that Paul is talking about a recent appearance of a historical figure is that Jesus was raised after three days according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15.4), but the appearances were recent. The gap would be between the death and resurrection in history and the recent appearances.

I don't want to defend this position, but I don't think that 1 Cor 15 is an adequate disproof, however it seems to flow. Paul is not reciting facts that he knows from his experience. He is "passing on" what he received, traditions or revelation that he derived from some other source, possible Scripture.

And there is an argument (which I assume that you reject) that this whole section is interpolated.

Quote:

... If we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised in the distant past but only recently revealed to the apostles, we must take pains to account for this gap; why, for Paul, did Jesus die in order to end the law and justify humans but then wait indefinitely before making this justification available to humans? ...

The wait was not indefinite - just until the current time. Everyone is sure that the time they live in is significant. (I think I recall an explanation for this time lag, but it's not my argument. I think the difficulty of interpreting Paul is an indication that his work has been heavily interpolated.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.