Sojourner553

To Iasion:

There are other reasons to question whether Jesus was a real person.

It appears the Catholic Church had to gloss over "problems" where the historical person did not jive with their doctrines:

(1) Jesus treating women on an equal level to men.

(2) Jesus was known to be from Nazareth and not Bethleham. You see Matthew and Luke doing acrobats trying to reconcile that he was STILL born in Bethleham (constructing DIFFERENT and conflicting) versions how he got to Nazareth.
This is because OT texts can be interpreted for a messiah birth in Bethleham not Nazareth. These gospel acrobats would not have been necessary if
it was all an invention.

Here is the biggest example:

After Matthew described how Jesus left Egypt to go to Nazareth, he states this was done:

"to fulfill the words spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called a
Nazarene'".

While Matthew's OTHER verses can be verified. However, scholars have vainly searched to find any reference OF A MESSIAH BEING CALLED A NAZARENE in the Old Testament

(3)When Jesus is quoted, describing himself, he calls himself "Son of Man". It is others that call him "Son of God" (a Greek concept).

I would argue the term "son of man" would not exist if all this were an invention.

(4) There were a large number of known Jewish miracle workers/ prophets roaming through the area at the time -- all pretty much preaching the same message of hope against the Roman occupation.


Remember when Elvis died, and there were a large number of reports by his followers that he was "seen".

I think this shows the mindset how the rumor got started and elaborated on (through the known myths your site displays) to what we see today.

The Josephus texts really only are evidence for this view within this context (ie not as stand alone evidence by itself.)


I would caution you agaist pushing for the "tougher standard" that a historical person did not exist for Jesus. Because now all a religious person has to do to prove your WHOLE THESIS wrong, is a lower standard of proof: that there is evidence of a historical person.

Why not put the emphasis on whether there was a DIVINE person named Jesus? -- a much more difficult proposition to disprove. It's not so really relevent anyway as the issue of divineness.

Sojourner

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Atticus_Finch

I am surprised at how often it is asserted that Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus, cruxified and resurrected. In I Cor. 15:3-8 Paul expressly refers to Christ as dying for our sins, buried, raised from the dead on the third day and then appearing to numerous witnesses, including Paul. Galatians 1:1 (most likely the earliest epistle) states, "Paul an apostle--not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"

I read through a portion of the materials linked in the original post. I saw no rebuttal of the I Cor. 15:3-8 passage. In light of that passage, how would you argue that Paul did not believe the Jesus was an actual person.

Regards,

Finch

CX

Not to mention that in ROmans 9:5 Paul says:

WN hOI PATERAS KAI EZ WN hO XRISTOS TO KATA SARKA

Meaning "whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ according to the flesh..." This is describing Jesus human ancestry and is translated as such in many modern english translations.

Hondo

Finch and others, please take the time to compare another quote from Paul found in Galatians 1:11-12

1:11
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

1:12
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ
From the Skeptic's Annotated Bible

Paul is exceedingly clear on this point, what he preaches is not passed on from other men, he recieved his Gospel through revelation from the spirit.

Paul would be extremely inconsistent to say one thing to the Corinthians, and then quite another to the Galatians. Clearly his approach to Christ is purely through divine inspiration. It is clear that Paul is speaking from a Hellenistic perspective.

Either he is a consistent reputable man, or terribly inconsistent, in which case we can throw out his testimony, what do you think?

Hondo

Amos

You rush to the conclusion to assume that I follow the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church
is not a body of authority and never was meant to be. It is both above and below the state but never at the same level of the state and does not excercize any authority because of it.

Catholicism was a new religion created and later formed as a new branch that was grafted into the root of Judiasm.

Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amos:
[qb]

Edited to add that Peter was real but maybe not in the way you think he was "real." Peter was Truth and therefore real.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Iasion

Greetings all,

Hondo brings up an important point, Paul makes it crystal clear that he received his Gospel from "no man" - but through the spirit. He emphasises that he is just as much as apostle as Peter and the Jerusalem pillars.

Paul's comments which are often adduced as a belief in a historical Jesus are of the most vague and uncertain nature - there is never any details of time and place and names.

Now, consider the 'appearances' - there is no indication that the appearance to Paul is any difference to the other appearances, coupled with his statements about getting the Gospel from 'no man', the logical conclusion is that they all 'saw' Jesus in a vision like Paul. Also, these appearances are contradictory to the appearance stories found in the Gospels, which are all contradictory to each other - in short, they are all about visions of a spiritual Christ.

Now, consider the start of the passage :
Paul is talking about what he 'received' - i.e. what he learnt in his visions of Christ (he explicitly says he 'received' the gospel from no man remember) - he is saying that he realised in a vision what the scriptures say about Christ - in a spiritual sense.

Consider this example - Rom 16,25 :
There is no room here for a recent Jesus who taught - what is "now disclosed" is the mysteries which Paul has now interpreted from the scriptures - what he calls "my Gospel" which is "about Jesus Christ" which he now discloses.


The comments about 'in the flesh' show not the slightest details of an actual person, an actual time and place. Paul regularly makes the dualist distinction between 'after the spirit' and 'after the flesh' - Jesus Christ can be seen in two ways: spiritually he is son-of-god, but physically, when incarnated in a human, he is seed-of-david - i.e. he ensouls a Jewish man like Paul.

Consider the large amount of letters Paul writes - in all of this he makes a TINY number of references which MAY possibly be taken to refer to a historical Jesus. Yet there are a VAST numnber of places where we might expect Paul (and others) to mention Jesus, his teachings or his miracles etc. but they do NOT. I invite readers to read Earl's list of such ommisions :
<a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/silintro.htm" target="_blank">http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/silintro.htm</a>


Consider in general, what Paul NEVER says - there is NO mention anywhere of:
* Nazareth
* Bethlehem
* Galilee, Capernaum
* Mary or Joseph
* Pilate
* Judas
* Herod
* Lazarus
* Martha
* Calvary
* Jesus' baptism
* Jesus' teachings !
* Jesus' miracles
* Jesus' triumphal entry
* Jesus' sermon on the mount
* Jesus' trial
* Jesus passion
* etc, etc..

Paul actually travels to Jerusalem and shows no knowledge what so ever that Jesus has recently lived there and been crucified nearby. He argues he is just as much an apostle as those who allegedly had been with Jesus, or even were his relatives.

If one reads Paul with no pre-conceptions, there is not the slightest evidence of an actual person who recently lived nearby, performed miracles or gave teachings. Paul's Jesus Christ is a spiritual being who has been revealed through Paul's revelation.

Consider also - if Paul had really claimed that his son-of-god Jesus was actually a man - this would have been the worst possible blasphemy for a Jew - yet Paul never addresses this point. In fact Paul never once equates his spiritual Jesus Christ with the man Jesus of Nazareth - that only comes a century later.


Quentin David Jones

sotzo

Hello Quentin:

Hondo brings up an important point, Paul makes it crystal clear that he received his Gospel from "no man" - but through the spirit. He emphasises that he is just as much as apostle as Peter and the Jerusalem pillars.

Using Galatians 1:12 as evidence for a Gnostic Paul and/or a mythic Jesus is poor exegesis. Whatever Paul means in Galatians 1:12, he cannot mean that Jesus, for him, is ahistorical. There are two lines of evidence for this, both coming from Pauline epistles, including the very book of Galatians.

First, are Paul’s actual statements about Jesus’ himself, particularly in Romans 1:3 (“..regarding His Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David…&#8221 , Galatians 3:6-14 where Paul shows that Jesus is the seed from which God promised in Genesis to bless the nations, Galatians 1:18-19 (…”James the Lord’s brother…&#8221 . The first passage speaks of Jesus’ family lineage, the second of him being the offspring of blessing that was promised in Genesis and lastly as a brother of James. So here we have three passages that make absolutely no sense unless Paul believes Jesus was an historical person. Again, taking Galatians 1:12 by itself to mean that Paul held to an ahistorical Jesus is only possible if one avoids other evidence from Pauls own writings (and indeed the rest of Galatians!). More evidence against the view that Paul held to a mythic Jesus includes Philippians 2:6-8.

Second, are Paul’s statements about Jesus within the context of his discussions regarding the resurrection. I Corinthians 15:22 equates death coming through Adam to life from Christ. The resurrection “works” to reverse death precisely because of Christ’s manhood (see verse 21). Paul earlier in the same chapter, in answering the Corinthians about the resurrection of the dead, makes it clear that resurrection is possible for them if and only if Christ actually raised. One may wish to argue that Paul is not referring to a physical resurrection, but rather, a spiritual. That person must then explain how the 500 and the 12 apostles, mentioned by Paul in I Cor 15:3-7, experienced the exact same hallucination/vision. The point being, that if Paul is referring to a physical resurrection then he, be definition, is referring to an historical Jesus.

Paul's comments which are often adduced as a belief in a historical Jesus are of the most vague and uncertain nature - there is never any details of time and place and names.

The above two lines of evidence argue against the claim that Paul’s comments are of the most “vague and uncertain nature” and that “there is never any details of time and place and names”.

Now, consider the 'appearances' - there is no indication that the appearance to Paul is any difference to the other appearances, coupled with his statements about getting the Gospel from 'no man', the logical conclusion is that they all 'saw' Jesus in a vision like Paul.

Your first claim is that there is no indication that the appearance to Paul us any different to the other appearances. The report of Paul’s conversion in Acts does not indicate a physical Jesus at the scene. However, this is not the case with the appearances immediately after the resurrection. (See my point regarding I Cor 15:3-7 above.) Further, the Gospels certainly indicate a physical resurrection. Again, one may wish to follow a Wellsian approach to the Gospels and suppose they were later constructions of the church to construct a Jesus that was never intended by Paul (and thereby render the Gospel accounts unreliable). This line of reasoning is usually founded on the twin assumptions of 1)late dating of the Gospels and 2)increasing amounts of detail of Jesus from Paul to the Gospels. The first attempts to allow enough time for myth to creep in to the final versions of the Gospels, the second supposes that Paul would have included as much detail if not more than the Gospels since it was written first. With regard to the latter, if it was not Paul’s intention to write accounts of Jesus life, why would we expect to find much detail of Jesus’ life? Cleary Paul’s concern was with the theological implications of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as well as setting up the church. Asking why Paul does not have more detail about Jesus’ life in his writings is kind of like asking why a detailed history of Einstein’s life is not included in a book that explains the theory of relativity.

Also, these appearances are contradictory to the appearance stories found in the Gospels, which are all contradictory to each other - in short, they are all about visions of a spiritual Christ.

First a general question about your claim here. If the Gospels are all contradictory in their details about the appearances, how can you make a conclusion that they are “visions of a spiritual Christ”? It seems that you move here from “contradictory” to “spiritual Christ”? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point.
Regardless, I have discussed above the appearances in the Gospels. But on top of that, there is John 20:26-29, John 21:13, Luke 24:15, 41-42, Matt 28:9. None of these passages make sense without a physical appearance of Jesus.

Now, consider the start of the passage :
quote:


"For I delivered to you, as of prime importance, what also I received that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he has been raised on the third day according to the scriptures,"

Paul is talking about what he 'received' - i.e. what he learnt in his visions of Christ (he explicitly says he 'received' the gospel from no man remember) - he is saying that he realised in a vision what the scriptures say about Christ - in a spiritual sense.

The words “received” and “revelation”, in their Greek forms, do not indicate a “learnt” in the sense that one “figures out” on one’s own. This is what you have above. Rather the two words clearly mean a passive reception of information from a source to a recipient. “Revelation” comes from Greek word from which we get “apocalypse” which is a disclosure such as that which John received on Patmos. There is no realization such as “Oh yeah! Now I understand!”. It is a pure transmission of information – one which was so powerful that it transformed Paul immediately from his previous ways (Acts 9:20). This is also the case in Galatians 1:12. Why do you think that Paul is using a “spiritual sense” in any of these passages (including the Romans 16 passage below)?

Consider this example - Rom 16,25 :
quote:


through my gospel and proclamation about Jesus Christ, through his [God’s] revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, now disclosed and made known through the prophetic writings at the command of the eternal God

There is no room here for a recent Jesus who taught - what is "now disclosed" is the mysteries which Paul has now interpreted from the scriptures - what he calls "my Gospel" which is "about Jesus Christ" which he now discloses.

I don’t follow you here. If you are saying that Paul is claiming that he has interpreted the Scriptures and come to the conclusion that they are about Jesus, and that it is made up apart from a genuine revelation from God, then I very much disagree as described above. The passage itself says that it is a mystery that has been revealed. This is the revealed Gospel and it is a Gospel dependent on an historical Jesus (as we have discussed above.)

The comments about 'in the flesh' show not the slightest details of an actual person, an actual time and place. Paul regularly makes the dualist distinction between 'after the spirit' and 'after the flesh' - Jesus Christ can be seen in two ways: spiritually he is son-of-god, but physically, when incarnated in a human, he is seed-of-david - i.e. he ensouls a Jewish man like Paul.

Even if the comments about “in the flesh” were not to refer to an historical Jesus, the other passages I cite above do indeed. For example, when Paul connects James to Jesus as brothers, there is no apparent dualist context there – the most appropriate interpretation is that Paul is referring to an actual brother of James who lived and whose name was Jesus (or the “Lord” in that specific passage).

Further, the dualism you mention above does not get rid of an historical Jesus. If you are right that Paul sees Jesus as the son of God (spiritually) and as incarnate human (physical), you still have to have the physical aspect to make your Gnostic hypothesis work…and physical is historical.

Consider the large amount of letters Paul writes - in all of this he makes a TINY number of references which MAY possibly be taken to refer to a historical Jesus.

There is no possible about it…the passages I’ve discussed herein are absurd unless Paul is referring to an historical Jesus. See my first paragraph response.

Yet there are a VAST numnber of places where we might expect Paul (and others) to mention Jesus, his teachings or his miracles etc. but they do NOT. I invite readers to read Earl's list of such ommisions :
<a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/silintro.htm" target="_blank">http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/silintro.htm</a>

It is a common practice of the Jesus mythers (ie, Acharya S, Earl Doherty, Wells, etc.) to posit where they would expect Paul to mention details about Jesus’ life. But how come they do not deal with the passages where Paul clearly indicates an historical Jesus (again, see my first paragraph for those passages)?? Further, Paul is not attempting to write a book of Jesus life – he is trying to found and grow churches. Positing where and what we might expect Paul, or any author for that matter, to say in a text is an inadequate way of dealing with what is indeed present in the text.

Consider in general, what Paul NEVER says - there is NO mention anywhere of:
* Nazareth
* Bethlehem
* Galilee, Capernaum
* Mary or Joseph
* Pilate
* Judas
* Herod
* Lazarus
* Martha
* Calvary
* Jesus' baptism
* Jesus' teachings !
* Jesus' miracles
* Jesus' triumphal entry
* Jesus' sermon on the mount
* Jesus' trial
* Jesus passion
* etc, etc..

We do indeed learn about Jesus’ teachings from the writings of Paul, largely from the example of Jesus himself . In II Cor 10:1, Paul calls out the “meekness and gentleness of Christ”. In Romans 15:3 Paul, in giving instruction on loving the weak, points to Christ not pleasing himself as an example. Further, a comparison of Romans 12 – 15 with the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5-7 makes clear that Paul was familiar with Jesus’ teachings. In a very telling passage about how he would have communicated his knowledge of Jesus’ teachings to the churches, Paul says to “follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (I Cor 11:1).
About Jesus’ passion, we learn from I Cor 11:23 that Paul knew of the betrayal of Jesus.
So there is indeed mention of some of these, though admittedly, not all of these incidents. But again, if the question at hand is “Did Paul hold to an historical Jesus?” we need to ask the question as to whether Paul’s failure to allude to things such as Pilate, Nazareth or Mary would indicate that he did not.

I submit that the evidence shows that Paul uses details of Jesus’ life (and as we have seen, such details are not absent from Paul’s texts) only where it is useful to him accomplishing his purpose, which is spreading the Gospel and growing the church. Let me ask you - why would you expect him to write about Lazarus, Mary, Nazareth, etc? Would it make sense in the genre in which Paul was writing?

Paul actually travels to Jerusalem and shows no knowledge what so ever that Jesus has recently lived there and been crucified nearby. He argues he is just as much an apostle as those who allegedly had been with Jesus, or even were his relatives.

What do you mean by “Paul shows no knowledge”?? Would it make sense in the context of the problem Paul is addressing in Galatians (ie, bastardizing the true Gospel) for him to say that he knew that Jesus had been crucified near Jerusalem? Paul is trying to validate his apostolic authority to the Galatians so that they understand that the Gospel they originally accepted was the true Gospel.

You go on to say that he argues that he is just as much an apostle as those who were “allegedly” with Jesus. Precisely. Paul is showing that although he was not one of the original apostles who was with Jesus, he is nevertheless, on par with them. Notice that for this argument of Paul’s to make sense (that he is on par with the other apostles), the other apostles would have had to have been with an historical Jesus. Otherwise, the dichotomy between Paul and the other apostles that the churches, such as Galatia were pointing out, makes no sense.

If one reads Paul with no pre-conceptions, there is not the slightest evidence of an actual person who recently lived nearby, performed miracles or gave teachings. Paul's Jesus Christ is a spiritual being who has been revealed through Paul's revelation.

I think I’ve adequately addressed this above. The only thing I’ll add here is that Paul did not believe that it was his revelation but God’s. (Gal 1:12…”received by revelation from…;Rom 1:17…”a righteousness from God is revealed &#8230 .

Consider also - if Paul had really claimed that his son-of-god Jesus was actually a man - this would have been the worst possible blasphemy for a Jew - yet Paul never addresses this point.

Yes, which is partly why Paul was imprisoned, beaten and eventually killed for teaching it. It was blasphemy. However, Paul believed it and I have shown passage after passage to demonstrate it.

In fact Paul never once equates his spiritual Jesus Christ with the man Jesus of Nazareth - that only comes a century later.

Which is the common mantra of the Jesus myth camp. Problem is that a plethora of Paul’s own writings heap up the evidence against such a claim. Some of that evidence I’ve presented herein.

One additional question. If I understand your last paragraph correctly, you argue that Paul’s spiritual Jesus became a real historical person with the early church. Why do you suppose the church would need to invent an historical Jesus when a perfectly good spiritual Jesus was available?

Many thanks for your time and consideration.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

dostf

Iason:

jesus real or not? Unfortunately it matters little when millions already believe. That is the real issue. If your work has freed YOU from some "false story" your work is worthwhile.

Vorkosigan

....person must then explain how the 500 and the 12 apostles, mentioned by Paul in I Cor 15:3-7, experienced the exact same hallucination/vision.

Sotzo, we have only Paul's claim that this ever happened, a claim on par with the nonsense one hears from missionaries all the time, speaking third hand of hundreds of witness to miracles. One can find the same statements about plenty of modern-day gurus, like Sai Baba. The stories are lies and exaggerations, of course. No "explanation" necessary. It's really about time this passage was laid to rest as proof of anything other than Paul's willingness to make up stories to impress his audience.

Further, the Gospels certainly indicate a physical resurrection.

Some gospels indicate a physical resurrection. The NT gospels were selected in part for compatilibility with that concept. it's not surprising that they reflect a physical resurrection.

Michael