Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33681  Postby willhud9 » Jul 04, 2013 2:46 am

dogsgod wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:
proudfootz wrote:The 'high context' gambit doesn't really work as there appears to be many situations represented in the epistolary record where it would not only be appropriate to mention some supposed word or deed of Jesus, but the episode would be the trump card that would have settled the debate.

This has been addressed before on this thread, which I suppose is one reason why the thread is so long, since the same points get raised again and again. :cheers:

There is a logic problem to that argument. "It is in the Gospel, but it is not in Paul." This doesn't really tell us much about Paul, unless we already know that the Gospel event/saying actually occurred. The argument may work against apologists who assume ALL the Gospels are accurate. But mainstream scholarship does not take this position. As I write in my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" several years ago:

    A final example: Doherty warns that it is a mistake to read Gospel events into the writings of Paul and other early letters. He states that even “critical scholars now agree” that Jesus' deeds “could not possibly have matched those of the Gospel story” (page 21) and that “critical scholarship... has begun to admit that much of the Gospel story... is indeed fabrication” (page 82). And yet, Doherty finds significance in Gospel details that are missing in Paul:

      The descent of the dove into Jesus would have provided the perfect parallel to Paul's belief that at baptism the Holy Ghost descended into the believer. The voice of God welcoming Jesus as his Beloved Son could have served to symbolize Paul's contention (as in Romans 8:14-17) that believers have been adopted as sons of God. (Page 65)
    I doubt very much that critical scholarship would expect to find the Gospel story of the dove descending on Jesus in Paul, given that Paul states that Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead rather than by his baptism (as seen in Mark). It might give fundamentalists food for thought, but would any critical scholar be concerned by the lack of that particular Gospel story in Paul?

proudfootz, can you give me an example of something that Jesus said or did in the Gospels that really happened (at least according to mainstream scholarship), such that Paul should have mentioned it?

proudfootz wrote:This is why it seems likely that the gospel tales were unknown to the authors who were supposedly hob-nobbing with Jesus's earthly intimates and converting multitudes all over the Empire to their newly-minted religion for the first time.

If using Paul's letters, then the problem is that many consider them as "occasional" letters. That is, Paul wrote them to address issues that had arisen in mostly gentile communities. Now, the logic here is that if some deed or saying by Jesus gives a "slam dunk" case for or against an issue "in places where they would naturally come to mind", then surely we wouldn't expect it to be an issue that Paul needed to address in the first place? In other words if Paul addresses issues that have arisen, then more than likely they are issues that were NOT addressed by known deeds or sayings of Jesus.

Again, probably best to discuss actual examples. If you have any, let's discuss!


There's a difference between reading the gospels into Paul, such as Paul meeting disciples of Jesus, and seeing Paul's influence on the gospel writers since Paul came first. Assuming that Paul met disciples of Jesus comes from having read the gospels, that is an example of reading the gospels into Paul. Paul met some "pillars" that were later portrayed as disciples of Jesus by gospel writers, that is one example as to how Paul's writing influenced the gospel writers.


You honestly believe that?

So you are saying that if you were to agree with mainstream scholarship and that Galatians was indeed Pauline authorship, then therefore in Galatians, when Paul says he met Peter, that turned out to be some random bloke he, Paul, invented which the gospel authors expanded upon in the Gospels to create one giant world religion. Boy oh boy talk about stretching to reach the mark. :scratch:

The easier and more logical answer is that when Paul says he met Peter, he met Peter whom was actually a disciple of Jesus. Therefore, Paul's understanding of say the Lord's Supper, found in Corinthians comes straight from Peter, which the author of Luke quotes verbatim from Corinthians and modern historians are in general agreement that Corinthians pre-dates Luke. Paul talked to Peter for 15 days. He even stresses in the epistle that he is not lying. Due to the context of the letter, we can assume that different factions were popping up and one faction did not hold Paul to be an authority of the church and therefore his teachings moot.

But this is easily gleamed from a simple reading of the text. I have no idea why you would wish to go through loops and hoops of sketchy information to make a case.

The reason Paul doesn't mention the life of Jesus abundantly is for several reasons:

1) Jesus' death and resurrection were more important in Paul's letters. Paul was dealing with salvation, grace, and the future of the church. His letters are only a small bit of the man. In his lectures, and his talks he may very well have expounded on Jesus' earthly life. But that is speculation. All we have are his letters and Jesus' ministry was not as important as his death/resurrection.

2) We do have glimpses of Jesus' teachings that we find in the Gospels. Now, it could be that the Gospel authors took Paul's teachings and attributed them to Jesus. But it doesn't make sense as to why and there is no probable evidence to really suggest that. If Paul spoke to Peter and Peter was a disciple of Jesus, than why not find core teachings of Jesus, such as adultery, such as helping the poor, etc?

3) We only have 13 total epistles for Paul and out of those only 7 are considered authentic Pauline letters by historians. Paul's letters were not general theology. They were letters of correspondence between the church. Paul would here about events as say Galatia and Paul would write to Galatia, to encourage, to scold, and to instruct. If Jesus was known at the time, and Jesus' ministry was known at the time, Paul would have no need to discuss it, since it was knowledge people knew.

Again, it really is simple.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19224
Age: 28
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33682  Postby dogsgod » Jul 04, 2013 4:30 am

willhud9 wrote:

You honestly believe that?

So you are saying that if you were to agree with mainstream scholarship and that Galatians was indeed Pauline authorship, then therefore in Galatians, when Paul says he met Peter, that turned out to be some random bloke he, Paul, invented which the gospel authors expanded upon in the Gospels to create one giant world religion. Boy oh boy talk about stretching to reach the mark. :scratch:



WTF are you on about? When Paul wrote that he met Peter he meant that he met Peter. You believe he met a disciple of Jesus because you see the names are the same and you assume as much. If you can show us where Paul claims to have met a disciple of Jesus, by all means. :roll:
dogsgod
 
Posts: 1978

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33683  Postby willhud9 » Jul 04, 2013 4:42 am

dogsgod wrote:
willhud9 wrote:

You honestly believe that?

So you are saying that if you were to agree with mainstream scholarship and that Galatians was indeed Pauline authorship, then therefore in Galatians, when Paul says he met Peter, that turned out to be some random bloke he, Paul, invented which the gospel authors expanded upon in the Gospels to create one giant world religion. Boy oh boy talk about stretching to reach the mark. :scratch:



WTF are you on about? When Paul wrote that he met Peter he meant that he met Peter. You believe he met a disciple of Jesus because you see the names are the same and you assume as much. If you can show us where Paul claims to have met a disciple of Jesus, by all means. :roll:


"Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother." -Galatians 1:18-19. The key phrase is I saw none of the other apostles. The other is referring to Peter in relation to the apostles. Whom are these apostles? You can make up your own fancy stories, or you can use simple logic and deduction and realize that Paul is talking about the apostles of Jesus. In of which, Paul in Corinthians defends himself as being a true apostle of Jesus such as Peter was.

So Peter was an apostle of Jesus. But oh I guess it must be that "mythical" Jesus that was going around. Because that makes perfect sense. Not. :what:

Again, your position has more holes than it does substance. For one door you supposedly close in defense of your position you open up two more. Again rather simple.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19224
Age: 28
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33684  Postby tanya » Jul 04, 2013 11:04 am

willhud9 wrote:The easier and more logical answer is that when Paul says he met Peter, he met Peter whom was actually a disciple of Jesus.

No, he "met" Kephas, as you yourself pointed out, in a rejoinder, above. Remember please, that "apostle" does not equal "disciple". He met no apostles ἀποστόλων other than Kephas, save James, brother of (the lord)....He doesn't say beans about having met any disciples of Jesus, while visiting Jerusalem.

Did Captain Yossarian meet folks involved with contraband, while flying jets in Italy, during the second world war?

Did Genji meet with, have sex with, and genuinely adore, his stepmother, Lady Fujitsubo?

Did Edmund Dantes actually befriend Abbe Faria, and thereby learn how to escape from chateau d'Ife?

GakuseiDon wrote:There is a logic problem to that argument. "It is in the Gospel, but it is not in Paul." This doesn't really tell us much about Paul, unless we already know that the Gospel event/saying actually occurred. The argument may work against apologists who assume ALL the Gospels are accurate. But mainstream scholarship does not take this position.
...
...proudfootz, can you give me an example of something that Jesus said or did in the Gospels that really happened (at least according to mainstream scholarship), such that Paul should have mentioned it?

Gakusei Don, can you offer a suggestion of something Jesus said or did, according to Paul, that should have been mentioned in the Gospels, given your assumption that Paul preceded the Gospels?

GakuseiDon wrote:I doubt very much that critical scholarship would expect to find the Gospel story of the dove descending on Jesus in Paul, given that Paul states that Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead rather than by his baptism (as seen in Mark). It might give fundamentalists food for thought, but would any critical scholar be concerned by the lack of that particular Gospel story in Paul?


Whether "scholar" or not, how does anyone determine precedence, given that neither gospels nor Paul's epistles acknowledge one another, neither has provenance, neither has authorship attribution, and, especially, that extant manuscript copies of both gospels and epistles demonstrate overt insertions, interpolations, and grotesque forgery?

Consider, by example, Mark 1:1. Someone, sometime, inserted, into Codex Sinaiticus, "son of god", not as text, but as nomina sacra. With those four letters inserted, Sinaiticus then becomes harmonious with Byzantine versions of the text, created centuries later than Codex Sinaiticus.

Does it really matter, whether "Paul's" letters were issued before or after the gospels?
Why does no "patristic" evidence reference "Paul", until Irenaeus, late 2nd century?
Why doesn't Tatian mention Paul? Why not create a "harmony" of the four gospels (diatessaron) PLUS the nnn authentic epistles? It is difficult to create a harmony of something which does not yet exist.

In the Muratorian Fragment, dated about 170 CE, badly damaged, written in Latin, but supposed to have been originally quilled in Greek, the anonymous author claims, referring to two letters he regards as spurious:
"forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion",
but, if, in the middle of the second century, there are already claims of forgery, how can we imagine authenticity, of any of them? How do we know that this fragment, itself, is not a fourth century forgery, for example? Why are we so convinced of the date? Is it because in the text, the unknown author describes as recent, the existence of a particular Pope, Pius, someone we believe from other, independent sources, to have been alive in the mid second century?

And did not General Kutuzov receive the accolade "Prince of Smolensk", after routing Napolean's retreating army? Does that mean, then, that Nicholas Rostov, who served on the front, under Kutuzov, eventually married the wealthy heiress, Mary, to save his family from financial ruin, because of his enormous gambling debts?

Works of fiction, need not exclude genuine historical characters. Tolstoy inserted both Napolean and Kutuzov.

I view Paul's writings as marketing tools, designed to improve the revenue of the nascent church. He focuses on the DEATH of Jesus, and the claimed resurrection, not because it is more significant that Jesus' presumed baptism, but because Paul seeks to increase church revenues, and folks become charitable, as they approach death ("can't take it with you"), whereas, baptism is associated with birth, in turn associated with another mouth to feed, and less money to give to the church.

There is little in the Gospels, by way of marketing exhortations. Paul isn't worried about circumcision. He wants revenue, not foreskins. He is worried about resolving conflict in the youthful congregations, which lack the stodgy character of Judaism, primarily, because the gospels contradict one another on essential doctrinal issues.

Like all marketing geniuses, Paul simply ignores these conflicts, and instead redirects the focus of his reader away from "facts", and towards legend. All one needs is faith, and a modest donation to help the church prosper. Paul is focused on the CHURCH, not the story of Jesus. So, which came first: chicken or egg? Did the church come first, then Jesus' life story, or did the story of Jesus' life (gospels) come first, and marketing guru Paul then fleshed out the details needed to get the CHURCH underway....
tanya
 
Posts: 285

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33685  Postby GakuseiDon » Jul 04, 2013 12:07 pm

tanya wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:There is a logic problem to that argument. "It is in the Gospel, but it is not in Paul." This doesn't really tell us much about Paul, unless we already know that the Gospel event/saying actually occurred. The argument may work against apologists who assume ALL the Gospels are accurate. But mainstream scholarship does not take this position.
...
...proudfootz, can you give me an example of something that Jesus said or did in the Gospels that really happened (at least according to mainstream scholarship), such that Paul should have mentioned it?

Gakusei Don, can you offer a suggestion of something Jesus said or did, according to Paul, that should have been mentioned in the Gospels, given your assumption that Paul preceded the Gospels?

No, I can't suggest anything.

tanya wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:I doubt very much that critical scholarship would expect to find the Gospel story of the dove descending on Jesus in Paul, given that Paul states that Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead rather than by his baptism (as seen in Mark). It might give fundamentalists food for thought, but would any critical scholar be concerned by the lack of that particular Gospel story in Paul?


Whether "scholar" or not, how does anyone determine precedence, given that neither gospels nor Paul's epistles acknowledge one another, neither has provenance, neither has authorship attribution, and, especially, that extant manuscript copies of both gospels and epistles demonstrate overt insertions, interpolations, and grotesque forgery?

Good question, though not sure of the relevance to the point I was making.

tanya wrote:Does it really matter, whether "Paul's" letters were issued before or after the gospels?

Again, it appears irrelevant to the point I'm making.

tanya wrote:Why does no "patristic" evidence reference "Paul", until Irenaeus, late 2nd century?

What about 1 Clement and Ignatius?

tanya wrote:Why doesn't Tatian mention Paul? Why not create a "harmony" of the four gospels (diatessaron) PLUS the nnn authentic epistles? It is difficult to create a harmony of something which does not yet exist.

The Gospels relate to the events and sayings of Jesus. The epistles don't cover that material. I guess that's why the early harmonies didn't include epistle details.

tanya wrote:In the Muratorian Fragment, dated about 170 CE, badly damaged, written in Latin, but supposed to have been originally quilled in Greek, the anonymous author claims, referring to two letters he regards as spurious:
"forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion",
but, if, in the middle of the second century, there are already claims of forgery, how can we imagine authenticity, of any of them? How do we know that this fragment, itself, is not a fourth century forgery, for example? Why are we so convinced of the date? Is it because in the text, the unknown author describes as recent, the existence of a particular Pope, Pius, someone we believe from other, independent sources, to have been alive in the mid second century?

And did not General Kutuzov receive the accolade "Prince of Smolensk", after routing Napolean's retreating army? Does that mean, then, that Nicholas Rostov, who served on the front, under Kutuzov, eventually married the wealthy heiress, Mary, to save his family from financial ruin, because of his enormous gambling debts?

Works of fiction, need not exclude genuine historical characters. Tolstoy inserted both Napolean and Kutuzov.

I view Paul's writings as marketing tools, designed to improve the revenue of the nascent church. He focuses on the DEATH of Jesus, and the claimed resurrection, not because it is more significant that Jesus' presumed baptism, but because Paul seeks to increase church revenues, and folks become charitable, as they approach death ("can't take it with you"), whereas, baptism is associated with birth, in turn associated with another mouth to feed, and less money to give to the church.

There is little in the Gospels, by way of marketing exhortations. Paul isn't worried about circumcision. He wants revenue, not foreskins. He is worried about resolving conflict in the youthful congregations, which lack the stodgy character of Judaism, primarily, because the gospels contradict one another on essential doctrinal issues.

Like all marketing geniuses, Paul simply ignores these conflicts, and instead redirects the focus of his reader away from "facts", and towards legend. All one needs is faith, and a modest donation to help the church prosper. Paul is focused on the CHURCH, not the story of Jesus. So, which came first: chicken or egg? Did the church come first, then Jesus' life story, or did the story of Jesus' life (gospels) come first, and marketing guru Paul then fleshed out the details needed to get the CHURCH underway....

Okay. Possible I suppose. But irrelevant to my point as far as I can see.
If Acharya S has seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of Pygmies. "The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven." -- Acharya S
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 1033

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33686  Postby dogsgod » Jul 04, 2013 12:44 pm

willhud9 wrote:
dogsgod wrote:
willhud9 wrote:

You honestly believe that?

So you are saying that if you were to agree with mainstream scholarship and that Galatians was indeed Pauline authorship, then therefore in Galatians, when Paul says he met Peter, that turned out to be some random bloke he, Paul, invented which the gospel authors expanded upon in the Gospels to create one giant world religion. Boy oh boy talk about stretching to reach the mark. :scratch:



WTF are you on about? When Paul wrote that he met Peter he meant that he met Peter. You believe he met a disciple of Jesus because you see the names are the same and you assume as much. If you can show us where Paul claims to have met a disciple of Jesus, by all means. :roll:


"Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother." -Galatians 1:18-19. The key phrase is I saw none of the other apostles. The other is referring to Peter in relation to the apostles. Whom are these apostles? You can make up your own fancy stories, or you can use simple logic and deduction and realize that Paul is talking about the apostles of Jesus. In of which, Paul in Corinthians defends himself as being a true apostle of Jesus such as Peter was.

So Peter was an apostle of Jesus. But oh I guess it must be that "mythical" Jesus that was going around. Because that makes perfect sense. Not. :what:

Again, your position has more holes than it does substance. For one door you supposedly close in defense of your position you open up two more. Again rather simple.


I don't have a position that I am defending, I am merely calling you on your BS.

Gal2: 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he [God] who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),


We learn from the epistles that 1st century apostles were appointed by God. Peter was appointed by God as was Paul.

1, where is Jesus in this appointing of apostles?

2, an apostle is not a disciple, where does Paul claim to have met a disciple of Jesus?
dogsgod
 
Posts: 1978

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33687  Postby GakuseiDon » Jul 04, 2013 1:38 pm

dogsgod wrote:We learn from the epistles that 1st century apostles were appointed by God. Peter was appointed by God as was Paul.

1, where is Jesus in this appointing of apostles?

What about Gal 1:1?

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
If Acharya S has seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of Pygmies. "The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven." -- Acharya S
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 1033

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33688  Postby Blood » Jul 04, 2013 3:46 pm

willhud9 wrote:
3) We only have 13 total epistles for Paul and out of those only 7 are considered authentic Pauline letters by historians.


willhud9 wrote:
Again, it really is simple.


If it were "simple," then all of the letters attributed to this "Paul" would be considered authentic by historians. The fact that we have evidence of multiple authors writing as "Paul" means that the situation is not "simple." Which one is the "real" Paul? Why were people in the church writing letters pretending to be Paul? How come these inauthentic letters were canonized, when other inauthentic letters were not?
"One absurdity having been granted, the rest follows. Nothing difficult about that."
- Aristotle, Physics I, 185a
User avatar
Blood
 
Posts: 1506
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33689  Postby RealityRules » Jul 04, 2013 9:33 pm

willhud9 wrote:3) We only have 13 total epistles for Paul and out of those only 7 are considered authentic Pauline letters by historians. Paul's letters were not general theology. They were letters of correspondence between the church. Paul would here about events as say Galatia and Paul would write to Galatia, to encourage, to scold, and to instruct. If Jesus was known at the time, and Jesus' ministry was known at the time, Paul would have no need to discuss it, since it was knowledge people knew.

Again, it really is simple.

And many of the so-called "authentic-epistles" have been or are currently disputed.

What "Paul's" letters really reflect is hard to tell.

It really is that simple.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33690  Postby dogsgod » Jul 04, 2013 10:23 pm

GakuseiDon wrote:
dogsgod wrote:We learn from the epistles that 1st century apostles were appointed by God. Peter was appointed by God as was Paul.

1, where is Jesus in this appointing of apostles?

What about Gal 1:1?

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)


"not of men, neither by man" Jesus Christ and God the Father are not men. There's no earthly Jesus here.
dogsgod
 
Posts: 1978

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33691  Postby RealityRules » Jul 04, 2013 11:17 pm

dogsgod wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:What about Gal 1:1?

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)


"not of men, neither by man" Jesus Christ and God the Father are not men. There's no earthly Jesus here.

"Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the father ..)" seems to imply it is Paul who is "not of men" ... "by Jesus Christ" ie. Paul is also a nebulous character.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33692  Postby proudfootz » Jul 05, 2013 5:09 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
proudfootz wrote:The 'high context' gambit doesn't really work as there appears to be many situations represented in the epistolary record where it would not only be appropriate to mention some supposed word or deed of Jesus, but the episode would be the trump card that would have settled the debate.

This has been addressed before on this thread, which I suppose is one reason why the thread is so long, since the same points get raised again and again. :cheers:


Indeed - Stein should have realized Casey's article had been discussed previously.

There is a logic problem to that argument. "It is in the Gospel, but it is not in Paul." This doesn't really tell us much about Paul, unless we already know that the Gospel event/saying actually occurred.


That is rather the question - did anything in the various gospel tales occur in real life?

I would suggest that if it were true, as Casey seems to argue, that the gospel tales were so well known that Paul would be gauche to refer to them, then we would look for instances where these tales would be highly relevant to controversies under discussion on the letters - keeping kosher, circumcision, preaching to gentiles, patterns of conduct for preachers and followers, etc.

If Jesus were a Jew, would his circumcision not be a point of contention among pro- and anti-circumcisionists?

If Jesus said something about food purity would that not be a cogent example to use in discussion about kosherocity of food? Did Jesus keep kosher? Discuss.

If Jesus preached to only Jews, or included Gentiles, would not his example have been a debating point?

Now we could argue Jesus never did or said anything relevant to the sorts of controversies involving the christian churches of the 2nd century. It's entirely possible that a Jesus might have existed whose words and deeds had nothing to do with the later religion that emerged after his untimely death.

But that does not bode well for the veracity of the later biographies which supposedly depict his life, as they do seem to include all manner of things relevant to church politics of a later time.

The argument may work against apologists who assume ALL the Gospels are accurate. But mainstream scholarship does not take this position. As I write in my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" several years ago:

    A final example: Doherty warns that it is a mistake to read Gospel events into the writings of Paul and other early letters. He states that even “critical scholars now agree” that Jesus' deeds “could not possibly have matched those of the Gospel story” (page 21) and that “critical scholarship... has begun to admit that much of the Gospel story... is indeed fabrication” (page 82). And yet, Doherty finds significance in Gospel details that are missing in Paul:

      The descent of the dove into Jesus would have provided the perfect parallel to Paul's belief that at baptism the Holy Ghost descended into the believer. The voice of God welcoming Jesus as his Beloved Son could have served to symbolize Paul's contention (as in Romans 8:14-17) that believers have been adopted as sons of God. (Page 65)
    I doubt very much that critical scholarship would expect to find the Gospel story of the dove descending on Jesus in Paul, given that Paul states that Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead rather than by his baptism (as seen in Mark). It might give fundamentalists food for thought, but would any critical scholar be concerned by the lack of that particular Gospel story in Paul?

proudfootz, can you give me an example of something that Jesus said or did in the Gospels that really happened (at least according to mainstream scholarship), such that Paul should have mentioned it?


There isn't apparently much agreement as to anything that Jesus is supposed to have done - the consensus is that he merely existed, was Jewish, preached, and was crucified. Right?

If Jesus was Jewish it would seem his circumcision would be also controversial, either as evidence of what was required or requiring 'explaining away'.

If Jesus preached then the make-up of his audience would seem to be a ripe area for partisan bickering (as the later gospel tales do make him deliver 'crumbs' to the non-Jews).

proudfootz wrote:This is why it seems likely that the gospel tales were unknown to the authors who were supposedly hob-nobbing with Jesus's earthly intimates and converting multitudes all over the Empire to their newly-minted religion for the first time.

If using Paul's letters, then the problem is that many consider them as "occasional" letters. That is, Paul wrote them to address issues that had arisen in mostly gentile communities. Now, the logic here is that if some deed or saying by Jesus gives a "slam dunk" case for or against an issue "in places where they would naturally come to mind", then surely we wouldn't expect it to be an issue that Paul needed to address in the first place? In other words if Paul addresses issues that have arisen, then more than likely they are issues that were NOT addressed by known deeds or sayings of Jesus.


It would certainly appear that if Jesus were a Jew, then his Jewish lifestyle would be a constant rebuke to those who sought to abandon Jewish practices to make the admission of gentiles easier. His Jewishness, his diet, his circumcision, his conformation to Jewish behaviors would stand in need of 'correction' - and this would apparently be the central concern for someone attempting to establish or justify non-Jewish practices in honor of a practicing Jew.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33693  Postby proudfootz » Jul 05, 2013 5:17 am

dogsgod wrote:
Gal2: 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he [God] who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),

We learn from the epistles that 1st century apostles were appointed by God. Peter was appointed by God as was Paul.

1, where is Jesus in this appointing of apostles?

2, an apostle is not a disciple, where does Paul claim to have met a disciple of Jesus?


Paul met 'disciples' of an earthly Jesus only in the imagination of some less discerning readers.

It's just that simple - not sure why they cling to their misreading, though. :coffee:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33694  Postby proudfootz » Jul 06, 2013 10:15 pm

Corky wrote:
proudfootz wrote:The good news is that Vridar is back up!

http://vridar.org/

The issue was over copyrights - one wonders if the complainant would have been so touchy about copyrights if it was a complimentary citation...

It doesn't seem to be in the same place...my old bookmark still takes me to the "no longer available" notice. Oh well, just so long as it's back, right?


Yes, vridar is back - with an interesting diversion of the 'techniques' used by an historicist blogger to cover his tracks with regard to the timeline involved in the rather indecorous shut down of vridar.

http://vridar.org/2013/07/03/joel-watts ... r-or-lord/
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33695  Postby dejuror » Jul 07, 2013 2:36 am

dogsgod wrote:...There's a difference between reading the gospels into Paul, such as Paul meeting disciples of Jesus, and seeing Paul's influence on the gospel writers since Paul came first.


Based on the Pauline writings themselves,the Pauline writer cannot be first.

Paul claimed he persecuted the Churches in Christ and named those in Christ before him.

It must also be noted that a Pauline writer claimed he was the Last to be seen of Jesus after OVER 500 persons, plus, Cephas, James, the twelve and the disciples.

Effectively, revelations were a "DIME a Dozen" and were reported by every Tom, Dick and Harry.

What is most fascinating is that although the Pauline writer admitted hundreds of people [OVER 500] had revelations or visions or sightings of the resurrected Jesus BEFORE him some still attempt to claim Paul was first.

Paul was LAST in the Pauline Corpus.

1 Cor.15
.... he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep . 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also....


The supposed Pillars, James and Cephas had revelations or sightings of Jesus Before the Pauline writer.

By the way, it is not even reasonable to expect that the Pauline writer knew of all those who had revelations of the resurrected Jesus all over the Roman Empire. Potentially, thousands of people had revelations/sightings of the resurrected Jesus before Paul.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33696  Postby Corky » Jul 07, 2013 8:36 pm

People have visions of the virgin Mary too. Does that mean the virgin Mary exists? Religious nuts have all kinds of visions and dream up all kinds of looney tunes crap - doesn't make it so, though, does it?
Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.
User avatar
Corky
 
Posts: 1518
Age: 72
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33697  Postby dejuror » Jul 09, 2013 7:39 am

Corky wrote:People have visions of the virgin Mary too. Does that mean the virgin Mary exists? Religious nuts have all kinds of visions and dream up all kinds of looney tunes crap - doesn't make it so, though, does it?


Plus, religious nuts may have lied about visions. It is not really logical that Paul must have had visions because some may have claimed they had visions.

Historical accounts are not products of visions.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33698  Postby GrahamH » Jul 09, 2013 9:37 am

dejuror wrote: It must also be noted that a Pauline writer claimed he was the Last to be seen of Jesus after OVER 500 persons, plus, Cephas, James, the twelve and the disciples.


It should be obvious that one person mentioning that 500 unidentified people saw person X does not mean that 500 people had visions, nor that 500 people saw a person they identified as person X.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19876

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33699  Postby dejuror » Jul 12, 2013 5:47 pm

GrahamH wrote:
dejuror wrote: It must also be noted that a Pauline writer claimed he was the Last to be seen of Jesus after OVER 500 persons, plus, Cephas, James, the twelve and the disciples.


It should be obvious that one person mentioning that 500 unidentified people saw person X does not mean that 500 people had visions, nor that 500 people saw a person they identified as person X.


The Pauline writings have serious problems. It should have been obvious that visions have no historical value.

Dreams, hallucinations and visions are not acceptable as historical accounts at any level.

It has already been deduced that the Pauline Corpus was a product of multiple unknown authors who made claims about the resurrection that must be or most likely false or cannot be verified.

It must also be noted that the Pauline claims of the "OVER 500" are without corroboration in the very Canon.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33700  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jul 13, 2013 9:09 am

dejuror wrote:
Corky wrote:People have visions of the virgin Mary too. Does that mean the virgin Mary exists? Religious nuts have all kinds of visions and dream up all kinds of looney tunes crap - doesn't make it so, though, does it?


Plus, religious nuts may have lied about visions. It is not really logical that Paul must have had visions because some may have claimed they had visions.

Historical accounts are not products of visions.


Visions of mary virgin or otherwise is often for economic reasons. In Ireland they appeared in some of the poorest parts of the country.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43008
Age: 70
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 7 guests