aa5874

But, my argument is that the Pauline writings do not in any way confirm an historical Jesus.

I have a problem with the Pauline writings and the claims of what went on before Paul

Well, let's look at Paul's word about JESUS.
Colossians 1.16-17 If we take Paul's words then JESUS was a MYTH.

ApostateAbe

I think that is reasonable. I know that there are some people, such as Earl Doherty, who think that Paul essentially founded the Christian religion, and the gospels were based largely on Paul's writings, which doesn't seem to make much sense in light of the many pieces of evidence that indicate Paul to be a relative latecomer to the Christian religion. Your solution is that there really was some founder to the Christian religion, who was a predecessor to Paul, whose doctrines preceded the divisions at the time of Paul. Seems like sound reasoning. And, I would say that the most parsimonious identity for this founder is Jesus, identified as Jesus by both Paul and all of the gospels. You ruled that out: "Thus, the mythicists are correct - no historical Jesus." And, I don't know why. A man named Jesus--born in Nazareth, follower of John the Baptist, a traveling orator, leader of an apocalyptic mystery cult, executed by Pilate--seems to be the most obvious identity to fill the role as the founder of Christianity, even if he is an earlier version who only loosely fits the mythical Jesus character of the Christian gospels. Wouldn't it make more sense for Christians to change the character of its founder only somewhat in their favor instead of giving him a complete makeover with no practical resemblance to the original man?

That may be why aa5874 has such a strong reaction against your proposal. He thinks that you really are proposing a historical Jesus, though you made the opposite perfectly clear. I normally advise people to not argue with aa5874, because I believed that he couldn't argue worth a damn and nobody will learn a thing from him. But, to be honest, I have learned a few things from aa5874. He constantly conflates his historicist opposition with Christian Biblicists. I see a similar pattern, only to a more moderated degree, in other mythicists that I argue with. A typical mythicist may imply that the existence of Jesus is less likely because the only historical accounts of Jesus are from Christians who believe all kinds of unlikely nonsense about him, such as all of the miracles and divinity. aa5874 takes that way of thinking to the extreme and makes it an explicit line of attack. He will argue as though the Biblicist gospel Jesus is the only model of Jesus that needs to be disproved in order for mythicism to prevail.

aa5874

What you state is certainly mis-leading.

This is an excerpt from maryhelena.

Maryhelena cannot establish, using external non-apologetic sources of antiquity, when one single word in the Pauline writings were written therefore cannot show that "historicists are correct in their insistence upon there being a historical grounding..."

It must FIRST be known or established when the Pauline writings were written.

And, further the claims made by the Pauline writers about Jesus are from him when he was in HEAVEN, a most non-historical place, after going through some clouds, a most non-historical event.

There is just no basis to say "historicist are correct" when they have NOTHING of substance on Jesus or the Pauline writers for the last 2000 years.

Solo

maryhelena, try this little theory (which very much resembles my own, btw) with the crucifixion. Paul uses it in such a way that it would not have made any rhetorical impact had it not had been a reference to an indisputable fact. Yes, of course, Paul preached a purely spiritual messiah, one that beckons from eternity, one who survived the test of living in the flesh. The very idea of ignominius death (which the earthly followers of were either downplaying to their converts, or painted it as lawless outrage) very much appealed to Paul who saw in it the ultimate paradoxical deed of God : God makes the unspiritual yokels see a fool, a madman, but it is the likes of him who carry in them the glory of God. You kill him in the most brutal act of public humiliation but you cannot touch the bond between him and God. It did not matter to Paul one whit what Jesus preached, what expectations he had of a messianic dawn, which he most likely preached. God made him a fool, a sinner in the eyes of the law. He was justly put away ! (Rom 8:4) But...and here an ingenius insight that Paul had...if Jesus was fooled by God into believing what he did, and then killed for what he believed, then his death cannot signify but the absurdity of human existence (the faith in God is in vain). To Paul, the Judaic traditionalist, the choice is either that,...or, to make the confession of Christ !

So, the crucifixion, the violent humiliating end of the would-be prophet looks pretty fundamental to Paul's teaching. He uses it for his own mystical parallels but also to expose his proselytic rivals. I proceed on the observation that if the crucifixion was a mythical event, the argument about whether it mattered would have been devoid of meaning.

Jiri

maryhelena

Yes, we are coming at the crucifixion storyline from opposite positions. I would agree that the crucifixion storyline is fundamental, perhaps the fundamental point, to Paul and to Christianity. Where I part company is in interpretation of that storyline.

I don’t think the choice is between the crucifixion viewed as some sort of absurdity of human existence, as though human life is futile, some sort of cosmic joke - and the only way to make sense of such absurdity is to believe that somehow god has a plan with it all. And thus view the crucifixion of a historical man as being part of that grand design for humankind. Thus, our confession of Christ becomes the ultimate public display of our two knees bending in submission to our own irrelevance.

The choice we do have when interpreting the crucifixion storyline is to seek an interpretation that does not compromise our moral sensibilities. Dawkins, he who is so apt with a few choice words, says it best:

The problem is, for the sake of argument, that if the crucifixion was historical, it would mean that the early Christians would have used a miscarriage of justice as the central clarion call for its atonement theories. Bizarre to say the least. Such a theory betrays a complete lack of any moral compass….Hence, we do them an injustice to presume that that is what they did. Much rather take the crucifixion story as being non historical – and that they were proposing a spiritual/theological/intellectual context not a historical flesh and blood context.

That old saying, we all carry our own cross, perhaps has a little insight here that could be considered with regard to interpreting the crucifixion storyline. Basically, the self-sacrifice that is involved in the crucifixion story cannot be related to any human, physical, sort of self-sacrifice. Our flesh and blood bodies are part of our human nature that we should be honouring not sacrificing. But there is a part of our nature that does welcome the idea of self-sacrifice. And that part is our intellectual nature. It is within that area of our life that self-sacrifice has a role to play. Intellectual evolution is no different than material evolution. Life, death and re-birth are the mechanism of both material and intellectual evolution. Ideas are born, they die (we often have to kill them off as ideas do not age well and seek to retain the glory days of their youth.....) and they are re-born in some other form. Nothing new under the sun, the new always has its roots in what has gone before.

Thus, Paul and his spiritual construct of the Christ figure, is, as it were, shifting the focus in human evolution from our literal flesh and blood and turning inwards to where human identity is perhaps best observed - in our intellectual/spiritual nature. Indeed, the Gnostics would have been quite happy to stay with that scenario - but we do have the gospels to remind us, as if that were necessary, that without our physical nature our spiritual/intellectual nature is lost anyway. Its basically a question of priorities for different concepts. In any concept dealing with our physical reality then moral considerations hold sway. In intellectual/spiritual concepts its free fall - anything goes because the intellectual, the spiritual, is a renewable source.

So, bottom line for me - a literal crucifixion of a human man has no moral significance whatsoever. Any atonement or salvation theories based upon such an immoral premise deserve all the ridicule and shame that can be brought upon them. Their apologists need an urgent appointment with the nearest mental hospital.....

maryhelena

I think I’d still go with Paul as the founder figure for Christianity - his new take on things would give him that position. What went on before Paul would, to my mind, have been more historically related i.e a historical figure that was seen as somehow relevant to prophetic interpretations re an earthly, flesh and blood, messiah figure. Paul, seemingly, took issue with this and opted for a more spiritual interpretation. Not that, I would imagine, he found the earlier take on things, in and of itself, to be without some merit, he most likely saw ahead and found that particular road to be filled with problems and hence opted for the road less travelled....for Jews anyway.

The Jews, as aa5874 is repeatedly telling us, would never have sought to turn a normal human man into some sort of godlike figure. Hence, your scenario falls short in that it can only go so far - as far as supposing a normal type apocalyptic figure - but not able to bridge the gap between that figure and Paul’s cosmic Christ figure. And of course, the apocalyptic historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth is a figure that cannot be historically verified anyway.

Try looking at things this way. The Jesus storyline is not the life story of the historical man that was relevant to the pre-Paul, pre-christian, communities. Don’t try and compare apples to oranges! While this man’s life story was probably relevant to a literal interpretation of prophecy, Daniel perhaps, it is not his life story that was relevant to Paul. What Paul found relevant was his very own interpretation of the life of that historical man. A spiritual, an intellectual, interpretation that sought to place the life story of the historical man on the back burner. Interesting and important as it might well have been seen - Paul has other priorities, spiritual priorities.

Yes, aa5874 makes some good points - particularly that ‘Paul’ has been backdated to pre 70 ce. The historical man that I believe was relevant to OT prophetic interpretation died in 33 ce, by all accounts a natural death. The years between his death and the arrival on the scene of ‘Paul’, probably just prior to or just after 70 ce, would be years of slow growth, consolidation of ideas re the historical man. Perhaps the whole pre-christian groupings would have died a natural death - but ‘Paul’ comes charging in on his white horse and saves the day - albeit not without giving the pre-christian groupings a considerable overall and imposing his own vision for the future. ‘Paul’ is the Christian kingmaker - and he decides for a spiritual kingdom not a literal earthly kingdom.

So, while ‘Paul’ has his own vision of how things should be - he does not start with a blank canvas - instead he uses what is there already in the pre-christian groupings that would have developed from the friends and followers of the historical man - and he transforms the groupings into something new. Supposing that ‘Paul’ is going to try and sell a spiritual Christ figure that was just a notion in his own imagination - and that there was a battle of visions - is to purpose a never-ending conflict. Instead ‘Paul’ works from roots that had already been set down in historical reality - the life of a historical man that others found to be inspirational etc. The base was there - ‘Paul’ simply uplifted that base to a spiritual, intellectual, dimension. ‘Paul’s focus was spiritual - but that focus does not negate the historical roots of the earlier pre-christian groups.

Of course, Acts wants to paint a picture of continuity following the death of Jesus ie Paul soon puts in an appearance. But historically, prior to 70 ce, the idea that a Christian community was functioning in Jerusalem is really wishful thinking. The whole idea beggars belief. The early pre-christian groupings were more likely outside of Jerusalem and Judea and Galilee anyway. That the Jesus story is told re these areas is one thing - but the storyline is itself only an interpretation of OT prophecies. There is no reason to expect that the details of the storyline re geographical areas of Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee, are areas relevant to the pre-christian origins of Christianity. The Jesus storyboard is the end result, the culmination, of a historical origin story that has its own roots outside of that storyboard and its Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee, geographical context. Other areas in the gospel storyline, Bethsaida, Caesarea Philippi, areas in which the gospel Jesus visited, are areas that, outside of Jewish influence, are better suited as areas in which a pre-christian movement could develop.

maryhelena

Indeed, Paul's Jesus is a mythological construct. However, lets be clear here - that position, Paul's position, does not rule out the possibility that prior to Paul, prior to Paul's vision re his spiritual Christ figure - that there was an actual historical man that was relevant to the pre-Paul, pre-christian, movement or groupings. Lets not fall into the trap of separating Paul's visionary insights from historical realities - with what had preceded Paul, on the ground, so to speak. Sure, they are two very different ball games here - visionary insights, interpretations etc - and actual historical realities - but one can't separate the two and side with 'Paul's interpretation, his vision, and reject the historical realities that have given rise to his visionary insights.

As to the question of what came first - Paul and his spiritual construct verse the gospel Jesus storyline - it's to my mind, a chicken and egg situation. Can't have one without the other. Sure, various stories re the historical man in connection with the pre-Paul, pre-christian, groupings, would be doing the rounds. But the re-take scenario belongs to 'Paul' - whoever he is - probably a figure based upon Josephus. It's all there actually, in Slavonic Josephus - a story about a wonder-worker that was neither fully man nor fully angel.....All the pieces, all the bare bones ready to be fleshed out in the gospel storyline and spiritualized in 'Paul's writings...(which does of course place the Jesus storyboard either shortly prior to or early post 70 ce.....long after the death of the historical man to which it owes its inspiration - but backdated to the earlier, prophetic interpretation, time-slot)

Innovation, which is what the Jesus storyboard is - usually is not a product of some committee. In the case of the Jesus storyboard and the rise of Christianity - the dice is loaded to fall towards 'Paul'. A figure that managed to capture, to 'hijack', an earlier movement/grouping and propel it towards a spiritual/intellectual road without end....If its an apocalyptic figure one wants - then 'Paul' is right there at both the end of the pre-christian movement and the new christian beginning...

bacht

Right, this could be the source of conflict between the Jerusalem "pillars" and Paul's gang of missionaries (Abe alluded to this in another thread). One possibility is that the original group were followers of John the Baptist, after whose death the mystics took over with their spiritual Christ.

If the epistles are right, all these people were expecting the end of the world. Or, they were originally gnostics, and later catholics added the apocalypticism to explain their beliefs :huh:

Doug Shaver

The only resemblance I see is in two of the names and in the fact that they were leaders of some sort. When the came time to write the first gospel, the author obviously figured that he had to work them into the narrative somehow. Why Cephas ended up being called Peter, I have no idea.

No, in this case I don't think their existence lends any weight at all to Jesus' historicity.

I don't think it's at all ridiculous. In fact, it's made me rethink my response to your hypothetical about Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot. In particular, it would be really odd for any evidence of Guinevere to not include a reference to her having been "wife of Arthur, King of Britain," or something to that effect.

I don't think it fits any evidence. I think the only thing it fits is a presupposition that Jesus of Nazareth just had to have been a real person.

Yes, the gospels do say that. Paul does not.

They were leaders of a religion to which Paul was converted. Of course he's going to have some regard for them -- just for that reason. Paul offers no other reason at all.

You don't think that begs the question just a bit?

aa5874

You are the one who seems to entrap yourself.

Once you have recognised that the Pauline Jesus was non-historical, a mythological construct, then it is self-contradictory to claim a MYTH was constructed from HISTORY.

There is ONLY one fundamental origin and chronology for the Pauline Jesus in the NT Canon and the Pauline writer, Saul/Paul, was introduced to the VOICE of Jesus after the offspring of the Holy Ghost ascended to heaven.

You seemed to be trapped by your imagination.

We have sources of antiquity and even better an APOLOGETIC source that place Paul after gLuke was written. We have an Apologetic source that did NOT account for any character or post-ascension event found in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

You need not imagine.

The Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

The Pauline writer was after Justin Martyr.

Again, you appear to confirm that you are caught in a trap laid by your mind, your imagination.

The Pauline writer CANNOT be self-corroborative.

It must be EXTERNAL sources that MUST corroborate Paul.

Acts of the Apostles place Saul/Paul AFTER the non-historical JESUS story, after the day of Pentecost, after the persecution of Jesus believers.

Examine the writings of Justin Martyr, or even of Municius Felix, it will be noticed that Paul is not mentioned at all. Paul had no influence whatsoever on Jesus believers in the 1st or 2nd century.

Simon Magus, Menander, the Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcosians and Marcion had influence on Jesus believers up to the middle of the 2nd century.

There is just no External historical Evidence for the Pauline writers in the 1st century or that the Pauline Jesus was grounded in history.

The Synoptics have EXPOSED and DESTROYED the HJ THEORY. The Synoptics demonstrate what would have happened to the HJ.

Peter denied every knowing the HJ and his disciples ran away and went into hiding.

There would not have been any Gospel story.

It was the MYTH of the resurrection that brought HJ back from the DEAD. But, NO JEW would have worshiped a man as a God, DEAD OR ALIVE or RESURRECTED.