Geoff Hudson

I think if somone like Paul (imo James) had have known there was an earthly Jesus, he would have shouted so from the rooftops. After all he lived a little closer to the time when Jesus was supposed to have existed, than did Mr Rutherford.

The simpler explanation is that Jesus was a fictional character whose experiences were based on those on those of John the prophet.

I am pretty sure that Apollos, along with Simon Magus and Agabus are editor's pseudonymns for the same person who was in opposition to James.

Geoff

Vinnie

Gregg

Well, Vinnie--actually it IS pretty simple, once you understand the setting in which Christianity emerged and in which the letters and then the gospels were written. It's establishing the setting that's a little complicated, but once that's done, the pieces just fall into place.

Gregg

Vorkosigan

What I detected in some of the responses was that any interest in finding points of comparison was trumped by a subjective sense of what they know Paul must have written -- and because they know this, there has to be an "answer" to the joke of the Rutherford example of an earthly Jesus believer bereft of references to the life of Jesus on earth in a letter collection.

Peter, the point that many have made about Paul is not just that he is silent on the Jesus of legend, but also that he made positive statements that indicate that Jesus was only a spiritual being, and further, that thanks to remarks in other documents we know that there was a strain of Christians who believed only in the spiritual Jesus.

It seems that people here aren't interested in using comparands in order to determine how likely it is that a NT epistle would refer to an earthly Jesus.

Sound analogues DO exist: 1 Clement, Hebrews, 1 John, Hermas, Barnabas, the forged Pauline epistles....and their position on the historical Jesus is?

I agree that agnosticism on the issue is wisest course, but this Rutherford analogy is just plain bad. The major issue personally for me is size; Paul's writings are much larger than the 13 small letters you've put together.

Gregg

Also Revelation, and the Ascension of Isaiah.

Gregg

Gregg

Peter, I think my responses are probably the ones you are obliquely referring to. You're a much more tactful fellow than I! But let me point out that I have apologized for dismissing your initial post as a joke, and I think I've also made it clear that my issue wasn't with making comparisons, but your choice of example. So, could we put any hard feelings to rest?Well, I disagree. I think the difference in context is extremely important, for reasons I believe I've already adequately explained, although I would be happy to go over them again if you want me to. And I think my stance is just as valid as yours, if not moreso.Differences that "may" make no difference. Or may make all the difference in the world. And I cannot recall making any simplistic claim like the one you articulated above. Maybe someone else did. But you can't just focus on the claims a few people make that you consider "questionable" and use them to cast doubt on the validity of the entire argument. As I think has already been pointed out.No, it wasn't "bad." But you presented the analogy without any qualification and, I feel, were too quick to draw conclusions from it.Sounds cool to me!First, I agree that agnostic is the smartest position on this issue, although for me, it's pretty much a formality. I have to be honest and admit there's always a chance Jesus could have been historical, but I think it's a pretty slim chance.

Second, I'm not dismissing attempts at a "reality check." Frankly, I think my posts HAVE been reality checks. Reality check-- All extant 1st c. Christian correspondence, the Revelation to John, the Ascension of Isaiah, etc. speaks of Jesus in spiritual and mythical terms. Reality check--The language used by Paul and his contemporaries is remarkably similar to that of neo-Platonist philosophers, who were perfectly happy envisioning higher-world realities without insisting they have some specific historical basis. Reality check-- The epistle writers complain about Christians going around saying Jesus hadn't come in the flesh, or denying the crucifixion, and don't say anything about people being eyewitnesses to these very things. Reality check-- The idea that God had taken on actual human flesh, or that a crucified man became God, would have been blasphemy to Jews, yet this is never given as one of the reasons the Jews rejected the Christian message. And so on. I hardly think I (or other mythicists) are operating solely on intuition here. I mean, there's some speculation involved, but it's not raw, unfounded, "ad-hoc" speculation. Mainly it's just drawing reasonable conclusions based on the available facts.

But even so, I'm open to your experiment.

Gregg

Greg2003

Some points I would like to make from this post.

First, If the suggested research in the first paragraph is intentended to overcome the predisposition to agnosticism in the second paragraph, then I think its a worthwhile pursuit.

Second, if by "broader selection of Christian epistolary literature" you mean to include gnostic and other heretical texts, then I think you're really getting somewhere since you're comparing Paul's letters to some clearly non-earthly Jesus believers.

Third, if Paul's language appears similar to gnostic and other heretical language that is based on non-earthly Jesus belief, are you willing to consider that Paul, or whoever the canonical writers were, are talking about a non-earthly, non-historical Jesus?

Fourth, what degree of similarity between Paul and the heretics would satisfy you that they are talking about the same kind of Jesus?

Fifth, and most importantly, what HJ do you think Paul may have believed in? Was it the HJ of the gospels? Which gospels? Other than the last supper, is there any clue at all as to what narrative elements of HJ Paul might have believed? You know, we can say, well there may have been a character upon which Gospel Jesus was based. But Paul is talking about Christ, the son of god, crucified as an atonement for the sins of the world. So he can't be talking about some guy upon whom supernatural beliefs got attached.

Vinnie

The setting? Well, if we look at our earliest extant written Christian sources they come from a self-proclaimed former Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). Paul was a Pharisee before meeting the risen Jesus. I refer you to pp. 289-388 of Vol. III of Meier's Marginal Jew series which discusses the Pharisees. I would especially focus on the Pharisaic belief of the resurrection of the dead. Belief in the resurrection of the dead was not unique to pharisees but it was a distinguishing characteristic or their movement. I feel that Paul needs to be interpreted in light of Jewish eschatology. The cross was a scandal to Paul (Say what, a Crucified Messiah?!) but on account of his experiencing the risen Jesus, Paul made a mjor turn around. He preached the Chirst whom he once persecuted. He was convinced that the resurrection of Jesus was a climactic event in Israel's salvation history. Sin and death had been defeated on the Cross and a new messianic era had begun.

As N.T. Wright said,

Though the former zealous Pharisee's first epistle that we have comes fiften years after his conversion into a "Christian Jew", "much of the personal as well as the theological bedrock of the old Saul is visible beneath all the Christian superstructure . . . similarly, there is a certain Jewish--and I would say Pharasaic--theological substratum both supporting and presupposed by paul's specifically Christian beleifs." (Meier, ibid, p 324).

Paul thought that the historical Jesus who died was resurrected. This resurrection of the Messiah (Paul uses "Christ" 270 times!) was a climactic event in Israel's salvation history. It ushered in the messianic era and for Paul, it brought about the last days. Paul's thoughts of a crucified/resurrected Christ presuppose and affirm the historicity of Jesus.

I say we interret Paul in light of Jewish eschatology. This context receives the support of Paul's own writings, and if Paul's actual thoughts are any indication of what he actually beleived then this is the preferable context. Let's not forget that Paul was passing on tradition as well and does have genuine HJ material in parts of the authentic Pauline epistles (the twelve is one example!).

To me, Jewish Eschatology is the most natural context for understanding our earliest written Christian sources.

Vinnie

Vinnie

What?!

See my last post

Gregg

Assuming Paul was talking about a historical figure when he talks about Jesus, then we can determine from his letters that he knew at least this much about him:

1. He was found in human form and "humbled himself."

2. He was "born of woman" and was of the line of David.

3. On the night he was delivered up, he broke bread and established the Eucharist.

4. He suffered at the hands of the "rulers of this age" and was crucified.

5. He died and was buried.

Here is what Paul believed happened BEFORE these "historical" events:

1. He was in the "form of God."
2. He emptied himself and became a servant.
3. He was "born in the likeness of men."

Here is what Paul believed happened AFTER these "historical" events:

1. He was raised from the dead.

2. He subjugated the "elemental spirits," the "principalities and powers" in the "heavenly places."

2. He ascended to the Father.

3. He was given the name Jesus Christ (Annointed Savior).

4. He appeared in visions to individuals and small groups, then to one large group, and finally, sometime later, to Paul.

Please feel free to add to this list.

Gregg