Iasion

heh,

I did the ol' left out the most obvious thing because its so obvious..

Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus - this is pretty clearly a spiritual experience which changed his life.

When Paul met the "Christos" he achieved a certain state-of-mind, he awoke the Christos inside him and communicated with higher 'something' as a result - thats what it sounds like to me.

Quentin

Ted Hoffman

Iasion
What about seventy seven times seven?
What about 12? (for the 12 disciples and tribes of Israel?)
And three (Johnahs sojourn to the whales belly and Jesus to the tomb)?
And the 40 (40 years in the desert for Israelites and Jesus' fasting)?
And 7 for 7 days of creation?
Anyway, Iasion (with all due respect), I think your explanation concerning the meaning of the numbers is ad - hoc since it follows no established or clearly explained methodology.

Do you then beleive that people do have paranormal experiences?
What would have induced that "experience" or vision considering Paul's background as Saul?
I don't want hard evidence at this point- I just want your thoughts on the matter.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

CX

I don't want to quibble here, but in regard to 500 being a "magic" number the text actually says "EPANW PENTAKOSIOIS" which translates as "above [more than] 500". This is not a "magic" number per se, but simply an estimate as in "there were more than 10,000 people at last night's game". Paul is probably just passing on a tradition he's heard about Jesus appearing to a whole lot of people.

Iasion

Greetings Peter,

thanks, I keep an eye out for Hengel.

No, my argument here is partly terminological.

The issue is the term "Jesus" which is heavily overloaded - implying some or much of the Gospel Jesus story (even using the term "HJ" implies the Gospels are based on history).

So,
if there had been a historical person who was EXACTLY like the Gospel Jesus - then it would be fair to claim he WAS the Historical Jesus.

And,
if there had been a historical person who was SOMEWHAT like the Gospel stories - then it would be arguable to say he was the HJ.

But,
if any historical persons (who were perhaps the basis for some of the Gospel stories) were really VERY LITTLE like the Gospel Jesus - then it is not correct to call them the Historical Jesus.

Thus,
as the evidence for any such historical persons leaves little room for anything but a minor figure who is really nothing like the Gospel Jesus - I argue such a figure is NOT rightly called the HJ.

In short, there was no HJ, because any historical person was nothing like "Jesus".

Is that more clear?


I support this argument based on my reading of Paul - the ORIGINAL Jesus was spiritual - so there was no HJ at all.

Quentin David Jones

Iasion

Greetings Intensity,


Well, No, and Yes..

People have experiences - people sometimes have rare and intense spiritual expriences - thus I consider such things "normal" and "natural". I do not believe there is anything supernatural or paranormal.

Yes, I do believe sometimes people have rare, intense spiritual experiences.

I have had such experiences.
I have talked to other people who have had such experiences.
I have read many accounts of such experiences.

Paul's writings have the ring of such a person, as do some other early works (e.g. 1 John - the writer seems to have just had an uplifting spiritual exprience).

I am sorry if this is off topic and religious, but this is the key issue - it is my view that the vast majority of Paul's readers have no idea what he was on about because they have little shared background to understand him - e.g. by a 3rd heaven (who here has ever been to the 3rd heaven? )

Quentin David Jones

Peter Kirby

Quentin writes:

No, my argument here is partly terminological.

The issue is the term "Jesus" which is heavily overloaded - implying some or much of the Gospel Jesus story (even using the term "HJ" implies the Gospels are based on history).

So,
if there had been a historical person who was EXACTLY like the Gospel Jesus - then it would be fair to claim he WAS the Historical Jesus.

And,
if there had been a historical person who was SOMEWHAT like the Gospel stories - then it would be arguable to say he was the HJ.

But,
if any historical persons (who were perhaps the basis for some of the Gospel stories) were really VERY LITTLE like the Gospel Jesus - then it is not correct to call them the Historical Jesus.

Thus,
as the evidence for any such historical persons leaves little room for anything but a minor figure who is really nothing like the Gospel Jesus - I argue such a figure is NOT rightly called the HJ.

In short, there was no HJ, because any historical person was nothing like "Jesus".

Is that more clear?


I support this argument based on my reading of Paul - the ORIGINAL Jesus was spiritual - so there was no HJ at all.


Well, you have also had occasion to make reference to the silence of Philo. It was to that argument that I replied.

There are a few things in the synoptic gospels that would arguably bring Jesus enough fame in his own lifetime such that he would be known to the writer Philo, such as the 2000 pig incident or the 5000+ feeding incident.

But I think that even a conservative orthodox Christian could whittle enough away from the Gospel Jesus, perhaps 10% to 20% of the synoptic incidents at the most, and be left with a Jesus who could have flown under the radar of Philo. Performing a lot of exorcisms and healings or saying a lot of wit and wisdom would not necessarily be enough to bring knowledge about Jesus to Philo of Alexandria during his lifetime. There was no press in that day, and there were doubtlessly many magicians and sages who were not mentioned by Philo. I don't think that any more than 20% of the material in the synoptics would require that Jesus be anything more than a somewhat gifted first century magician slash sage slash prophet.

If 80% of the Synoptic Gospel Jesus is historical to one man, would that be sufficient to justify the terminology of a 'historical Jesus'? If it is, and if a good argument is not made that Philo would have made mention of an 80% Jesus, then this argument against a historical Jesus does not have a lot of weight.

There may be other arguments, such as the silence of Paul, but these are other arguments. I believe that we could reach an agreement of some kind on the probative value of Philo's silence but leave Paul for another day.

Note that I am not claiming the existence of Jesus, and especially not claiming an 80% figure of historicity, but I do not regard these things as shown wrong from the fact of Philo's non-mention of Jesus. Unless the argument can be reformulated in a stronger way, I suggest that this particular argument not be used, while allowing that other arguments might be used.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Changed 'four gospels' to 'synoptic gospels'.]

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

Iasion

Greetings Peter,

Indeed - a good point - it is possible for a 80% Jesus to have existed and have flown under Philo's radar (but which 80%? measured how?)

What sparked my thoughts here was Philo's mention of crucifixions - and especially his allegory about the soul being "crucified" on the body.

If Philo had spent time in Jerusalem, and Jesus had been crucified there recently (starting a new religion), I would consider it at least likely that he would have mentioned Jesus.

But probably not a strong argument, as you note.

Do we know for sure if/when Philo spent time in Jerusalem?

Quentin David Jones