For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[GDon]

Thanks vridar and Mcreal. I'm not sure I can respond without repeating myself, which indicates to me that the conversation (at least on these points) has reached a natural end. So I'll leave it there. But it is good to get our thoughts down for comparison. Good stuff!

 

[GDon]

Well the issue is whether Paul's listeners/readers would have interpreted him as refering to a physical literal man, right ?

Right. And -- at least from my reading of texts (available in English translation, of course! I have no skills in the ancient languages) -- a "fleshly" man who is a descendant of earlier men implies strongly a man on earth rather than in the heavens.

While you argue that my heavenly interpretation does not fit well.

Yes Enoch did rise to heaven, which does mirror your Historical Jesus Theory, but my point here is this :

• Would Paul's listeners believe a MAN, a JEWISH MAN, who was born and crucified, was on Earth ?

So, could a Jewish man be living in heaven ?
Yes. Enoch is a (lonely) example. But consider Jacob seeing the ladder to heaven. And all those books of Jewish men visiting heaven like Isaiah.

And Jesus is a god-man too or an Angel-man - and we have very many examples of Angels living and acting in heaven - Satan, Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, Raphael, - and many more. The Nephilim were angelic beings who had sex in flesh with humans.

A hearer of Paul could reasonably interpret his crucifixion happening in heaven. I do not agree that Earth is an obvious interpretation.

There we disagree. I think a reader of Paul would see the "man" and "flesh" statements to indicate a man on earth.

Probably best to leave it there, since I don't think we are going to move from our respective positions! Thanks for your time (again!). No doubt we will have a further round sometime in the future. I'll look forward to it!

 

[vridar]

Thanks vridar and Mcreal. I'm not sure I can respond without repeating myself, which indicates to me that the conversation (at least on these points) has reached a natural end. So I'll leave it there. But it is good to get our thoughts down for comparison. Good stuff!

I really am curious. Could you give me just one instance of where my reply failed to address with alternative argument a point you had raised?

 

[Mcreal]

Thanks GDon!

 

[Kapyong]

GDay GDon

But I don't know anyone who is confused about what that passage means:

2 Cor. 5:16 "Therefore we know no one after the flesh from now on. Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more."​

Paul is urging people to follow the spirit. Christ was flesh so people may have known him, but people don't know him in that state anymore. It's possible that it is a dig at James and Peter; but anyway the meaning is clear. Postulating a metaphorical meaning here simply seems unnecessary.

Hang on !
You're actually agreeing with me here on a metaphorical meaning.

Paul : ' Therefore we know no one kata sarka from now on '
implying (per your comment) that now ' we know people kata pneuma from now on ' (i.e. we live in the spirit now, but before we lived in the flesh.)

But Paul is still physical, and still knows people physically. Therefore kata sarka CANNOT (*) literally mean 'physically'. It MUST be a metaphorical usage here GDon - wouldn't you agree ?

So, here is a clear and certain example of kata sarka (after the flesh, or according to the flesh) being metaphorical. Some translations render this in English as 'in a worldly way'.

Along with clear and certain examples of :

• Metaphorical baptism and burial Col. 2:12 "...having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, "
• Metaphorical Christ - Gal. 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. "
• Metaphorical crucifixion - Rom. 6:5 "For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him,

Paul is rife with metaphorical and heavenly mentions of Jesus Christ, yet shows not one single clear example of placing Jesus Christ on Earth.

Surely the default explanation is a heavenly Jesus Christ ? Occam's Razor says we should not add an un-necessary Historical Jesus entity.

So how to we proceed from here, on this point? How do we break that impasse?

Well, we've been doing this for so long, you quickly zeroed in on the key points Here is where we stand now I think :

• You argue that an earthly interpretation of Paul is the natural reading, I respond by pointing out his many metaphorical and heavenly terms, and especially note their beliefs in supernatural beings and places. I think your argument here is weak and based on asumptions, partly because they were much more open to heavenly things than we are now.
• You essentially argue that kata sarka means 'physically', but I noted that 2 Cor. 5:16 clearly refutes that.
• You argue that 'Sperm of David' is a clear reference to a physical man, but I suggest it has some un-specified metaphorical meaning.

The Sperm of David is clearly the major weakness in my non-heavenly Jesus Christ hypothesis, I do not have any clear examples of sperm being metaphorical or heavenly. But consider the woman who gave birth in the heavens in Revelation, and the various activities we've discussed in the heavenly visits of Isaiah and Arideus and others, and the many tales of Zeus impregnating women in odd disguises (a swan ? a fly ?)

I think heavenly sperm could reasonably be believable in those days. I'll see if I can dig up some references to sperm or seed in the ancient books.


Kapyong
* Can't make my mind up how to emphasize a word. All the cool kid authors avoid SHOUTING and bold, and just use italics. But we quote and cite words so often that italics get lost - I think I'll go back to SHOUTING

 

[Craig B]

Gday Craig B and all




Really ? Then what does Paul mean by this :

2 Cor. 5:16 "Therefore we know no one after the flesh from now on. Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more."​

' My self-declared "direct translation of the words" ' ?

Pardon ?
The Greek states "SPERMATOS DAVID KATA SARKA" - that is THE translation. Haven't you ever checked the Greek, Craig B ?


Kapyong

Yes I have. The English expression "sperm" is not a good translation of the Greek "spermatos" where the meaning "descendant" is manifest from the context. In Greek the words are the same. In English not. That's what "transition" means, to find the word most appropriate in the target language. If I say about somebody: does he have any sperm? When I mean, does he have children and grandchildren? Would that be a good translation? But the Greek expression "sperm" does indeed refer to a physical substance, does it not?

 

[GDon]

I really am curious. Could you give me just one instance of where my reply failed to address with alternative argument a point you had raised?

Yes, I agree you responded to my points with alternative arguments, but I don't think I can respond to yours without repeating my point again. That to me is a sign that the argument can't proceed. If it can proceed, I'd be happy to do that.

Paul's writings need to be assessed on their own. GMark can hardly be taken as an "independent witness". To refer once more to the Schweitzer citation, they both derive from the single tradition, Christianity itself, and therefore we cannot claim to have independent or external controls.

The Schweitzer quote that I think you mean is:

[A]ll the reports about [Jesus] go back to the one source of tradition, early Christianity itself, and there are no data available in Jewish or Gentile secular history which could be used as controls. Thus the degree of certainty cannot even be raised so high as positive probability.​

But didn't Schweitzer famously believe that Jesus predicted his own return in the near future, but that Jesus got it wrong? How could he have thought that was the case, if there is no degree of positive probability? Could he have meant 'certainty' with regards to the 'Gospel' Jesus rather than a historical 'bare-bones' one?

GMark's presentation of Jesus bears no comparison with any other Greco-Roman presentation of historical or biographical information as pointed out in another comment -- Burridge notwithstanding. GMark's Jesus is clearly a fabulous figure living in a make-believe world where even Pilate behaves as if in a fairy-tale.

If GMark's Jesus is "clearly a fabulous figure living in a make-believe world" it doesn't seem so clear to the people around that time. The Gospels were presented as being about an actual person as far as I can see. Is there evidence that the Gospels weren't about an actual person, or about a person who was supposed to have actually existed?

I think you are getting the existence of a 'bare-bones' Jesus with a 'Son of God' Jesus confused. I'm only arguing for the former. I'm not arguing that we can know much about that 'bare-bones' Jesus with much certainty, to the point that he may as well have not existed.

Adding Paul and Mark does not strengthen the case: it only doubles the indication of how weak the prima facie evidence is for historicity.

Historicity needs far more than Paul and Mark alone.

And there I disagree. I think it is enough to establish a 'bare-bones' Jesus. If there is a way to progress past this point, I'd be interested to explore it. I just don't know how to respond without repeating my earlier points.

But that's not a bad thing. It's good to see where the demarcation line is, for any future encounters.

 

[Mcreal]

If GMark's Jesus is "clearly a fabulous figure living in a make-believe world" it doesn't seem so clear to the people around that time.

Do we have testimonies of people around that time?

Is there evidence that the Gospels weren't about an actual person, or about a person who was supposed to have actually existed?

Irenaeus' Against Heresies suggests things were not settled in the late 2nd century eg. Against Heresies (Bk III, Chap. 18, v.7)

Thus, then, was the Word of God made man, as also Moses says: "God, true are His works" (Deuteronomy 32:4). But if, not having been made flesh, He did appear as if flesh, His work was not a true one. But what He did appear, that He also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore His works are true.

 

[IanS]

This is a continuation from another thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313197&page=11

I've titled this "For Kapyong", but anyone can jump in at any time. This thread is for me to defend my claim that the evidence is strong to support the idea of a historical Jesus.


Yes, it is a good question. If Paul supports an earthly Jesus, then IMO that puts the evidence quite clearly into HJ territory. One issue confusing this is that Paul definitely places Jesus in heaven AFTER the crucifixion. But what about beforehand?

Paul doesn't place Jesus on earth. But he uses language about Jesus that indicates that Jesus was a man, including calling him a 'man' ('anthropos').

Compare the language Paul uses about himself: In Romans 11:1

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.​

Paul also calls Jesus 'seed of Abraham' (Gal 3:16) as well as 'seed of David'.

Also, Romans 9:

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came​

This places Jesus at the end of a line of earlier Israelites, with those earlier Israelites presumably being people on earth.

The issue that needs to be highlighted here is one that confronts us numerous times in trying to reconstruct a historical Jesus: in the absence of a clear-cut statement from Paul indicating that Jesus was on earth, what can we decide? Is it:
(a) we can't make any evaluation?
(b) we can make some evaluation?

Here I think we can make some evaluation: in the absence of a clear-cut statement from Paul indicating that Jesus was on earth, we can look at the other writings on the time to determine what the ancient people made of such statements.

Here I can only conclude that (IMHO) Paul thought that Jesus was on earth, because he is using language consistent with that idea. Paul uses "my countrymen according to the flesh" for himself, and Jesus coming from the fathers of the Israelites "according to the flesh". Paul is a "seed of Abraham", and Jesus is also a "seed of Abraham".

And that is the mythicist challenge: to show that Paul could use such language but mean that Jesus was never on earth. And to show this, I mean by providing evidence that such language could be used in that way. I've looked at the cases provided by Dr Carrier and Doherty, and they do not have that evidence. Carrier comes closest with his "cosmic sperm bank", but even his examples are medieval and frankly incorrect.

Kapyong, what do you make of Romans 9? Can you show that such language was used to indicate men who were not born on earth?

I have not yet read the various replies to GDon's opening post, so my apologies if the following points have been made already, but -

The first thing to say about the writing known as Paul's Letters, is that they are all tainted by the fact that out of 13 letters once all said to have been personally written by Paul himself, about half of them are now accepted as forgeries written by other anonymous Christians. And of the remaining 6 or 7 we really do not know who wrote those either.

Also, according to Carrier (with references, see OHJ, p.511 note-4) Romans in particular (but probably other letters too), show signs of being pieced together from once separate and different letters.

Plus, of course, the fact that we do not have any original letters of Paul. All that we have as the earliest known examples are copies that Christian followers wrote about 150 years or more after Paul's death.

All of which just goes to show how very unreliable that writing known as "Paul's Letters" actually is. So it's extremely dangerous to take just a few lines from any such letters and suggest that their often highly obscure and peculiar phrasing, is "strong support for a historical Jesus".

But turning to the actual words you have as quotes from Romans -

- we should all be wary about whether such quotes are really correct. Because what was shown in the older very long HJ threads, is that there have often been disagreements between various translators about what the correct translation of various key words really should be. So it's vital to get all of that right if you are building a case on something as specific as a line saying ...

... "(the) Israelites, to whom pertain ... the promises of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came".


What does that sentence actually mean? It does not even seem to scan as translated into English. E.g., it says "the fathers" are actually "the promises"?? ... so actual people are the same thing as "the promises"?? ... and then it says that Christ came from those "promises = the fathers", and he (the "Christ") was said to be, or promised to be, "according to the flesh"?? The entire sentence, as translated, is just an incoherent mess.

But what is clear is that the writer, "Paul", is not claiming to have himself ever known any figure of Jesus in any flesh. On the contrary, the writer appears to be presenting the entire concept of belief in a messiah, "according to the flesh", as a "promise" from earlier people known as "the fathers". And, and since he is also talking there about the nation of Israelites, presumably by "the fathers" he means people like Moses, Abraham, David etc.??

But afaik most bible scholars now agree that Moses, Abraham and David were actually themselves only ever fictional figures. In which case it could only have ever been a mistaken belief by the likes of Paul to think that any "Christ" "of the flesh", could have been descended physically in a family line from non-existent fictional figures like David or Abraham.

Another peculiar thing about the quote that you give, is that the writer "Paul" also says "... for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites,...", in which sentence it appears that he (Paul) feels it necessary to tell the people of Israel that they are real people and not just imaginary!! Why, does Paul speak to people, either in his letters or in his constant verbal preaching of those same beliefs, telling the people assembled in front of him, that they are "of the flesh" as if the people standing there actually doubted that they themselves are real people??

However apart from all of that - if you look in other letters from Paul, he makes very clear that he did not believe that "the Christ" was actually a normal human man at all. Instead he actually says (eg Philipians 2, 5-11, see the quote below) -


Philipians 2; 5-11 (quoted from Carrier on-the-H-of-J, page 533)

Have this in mind (of humble love) in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not decide to seize equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being made in the likeness of men, and being discovered as a man in outward form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, a death of a cross.


In that passage, the writer ("Paul") is very clearly saying that his belief in Jesus, is that he was not a human man. But instead was a form of the heavenly God himself, who simply made himself into "the likeness of man ... in outward form ...". But where did Paul ever get that idea? Who told him anything like that? Afaik, he got that entire idea from his reading of what he kept referring to as "according to scripture", i.e. afaik it's a belief that he obtained from what he thought to be the real meaning "hidden so long" in the OT scriptural messiah prophecies ...

... in other words - the writer "Paul" is getting all of these beliefs, claims, and statements written in his various letters, from what he believed was God's revelation to him which allowed him (Paul) to gain understanding of the true hidden meaning in OT scriptural messiah prophecies. None of this was actually happening, and none of it had ever actually happened (i.e. past tense); instead what Paul is preaching is his belief of what he thought OT scripture had promised about the coming of the long awaited messiah (due since at least shortly after the time of figures like David Abraham, Moses, i.e. since about 1000 BC).

 

[Craig B]

... it could only have ever been a mistaken belief by the likes of Paul to think that any "Christ" "of the flesh", could have been descended physically in a family line from non-existent fictional figures like David or Abraham.

So what? He believed that Jesus was descended from these people, in whose existence he also believed

Another peculiar thing about the quote that you give, is that the writer "Paul" also says "... for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites,...", in which sentence it appears that he (Paul) feels it necessary to tell the people of Israel that they are real people and not just imaginary!! Why, does Paul speak to people, either in his letters or in his constant verbal preaching of those same beliefs, telling the people assembled in front of him, that they are "of the flesh" as if the people standing there actually doubted that they themselves are real people??

That is moronic. They are countrymen of the flesh, because as it is stated in the cited passage, they are of physical Israelite descent; but not necessarily "countrymen" of the spirit, because Paul has rejected the Jewish laws, as well we know. That is the evident meaning of this statement.

However apart from all of that - if you look in other letters from Paul, he makes very clear that he did not believe that "the Christ" was actually a normal human man at all. Instead he actually says (eg Philipians 2, 5-11, see the quote below)

Paul is not thought to be the author of that passage of Philippians. It is the Kenosis Hymn. Go and look up the vast literature on this topic.

This passage in Philippians uses uncommon words, and words used differently to the way Paul generally used them in his epistles. This seems to indicate that Paul was not the original author of this creed-hymn. The fact that there is no mention of salvation or the resurrection in this hymn further suggests that it is not Paul’s composition, as salvation, justification and Christ’s resurrection were subjects of vital importance to Paul (2 Corinthians 15:1ff)​

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Craig B

Thanks for your reply.

But the Greek expression "sperm" does indeed refer to a physical substance, does it not?

No.

It CAN refer to literal sperm, it usually does refer to physical sperm, but it does NOT have to mean literal physical sperm.

Because it CAN refer to heavenly sperm. You seem to dismiss that possibility entirely.

Why do you assume that sperm must be earthly Craig B ?

The Nephilim were heavenly, yet had sperm for human women. All sorts of activities took place in the heavens - e.g. the woman giving birth before the dragon in Rev.

Consider Philo's (Who is the Heir of Divine Things) description of the Logos :

'...is the invisible, spermatic, technical, and divine Word, which shall most properly be dedicated to the Father.'​

Plutarch (Sentiments Concerning ... Philosophers ...) discussed if the spermatic faculty was corporeal -

Leucippus and Zeno say, that it is a body and a fragment of the soul. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, that the spermatic faculty is incorporeal, as the mind is which moves the body; but the effused matter is corporeal. Strato and Democritus, that the essential power is a body; for it is like spirit.​

Justin Martyr (Apology II) refers to a 'spermatic word' -

For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic word, seeing what was related to it. ​

The Gnostic work On The Origin Of The World has sperm as an originating substance :

And at that time, the prime parent then rendered an opinion concerning man to those who were with him. Then each of them cast his sperm into the midst of the navel of the earth. Since that day, the seven rulers have fashioned man with his body resembling their body, but his likeness resembling the man that had appeared to them.​

The Gnostic Tripartite Tractate clearly uses 'sperm' in metaphorical ways -

Like the word he begot them, subsisting spermatically, and the ones whom he was to beget had not yet come into being from him. The one who first thought of them, the Father, - not only so that they might exist for him, but also that they might exist for themselves as well, that they might then exist in his thought as mental substance and that they might exist for themselves too, - sowed a thought like a spermatic seed.​

So,
it is quite clear that the term 'sperm' does NOT have to mean physical sperm. (Note well the interesting term 'spermatic word' - which seems to connect the Logos with sperm.)

Perhaps you think it must, simply because you have never seen or heard, or even CONSIDERED heavenly sperm ?

It's a fairly natural conclusion, but it's simply wrong - these people lived in a world with various heavens and supernatural beings and demons and angels and angel-men and witches and ghosts. Things happen in heaven - between various beings, involving various things.

Just because something is only ever physical in our modern world, does not mean an ancient like Paul only ever refers to physical things.

So -
I argue that Paul is NOT using the word 'sperm' in a literal physical sense.

But -
I do not have a specific argument for how it could be heavenly sperm.

I fully acknowledge this is a major weak spot in my theories. We will continue to discuss it, I will do more research - perhaps I will convince you, perhaps you will convince me (I DO change my mind when clearly shown wrong.)


Kapyong

 

[smartcooky]

I have not yet read the various replies to GDon's opening post, so my apologies if the following points have been made already, but <polite snip>
... in other words - the writer "Paul" is getting all of these beliefs, claims, and statements written in his various letters, from what he believed was God's revelation to him which allowed him (Paul) to gain understanding of the true hidden meaning in OT scriptural messiah prophecies. None of this was actually happening, and none of it had ever actually happened (i.e. past tense); instead what Paul is preaching is his belief of what he thought OT scripture had promised about the coming of the long awaited messiah (due since at least shortly after the time of figures like David Abraham, Moses, i.e. since about 1000 BC).

So, if we boil this all down...

1. We know that we have no written records that are contemporaneous with the time of alleged HJ.

2. What written records we do have we know were not written until at least a generation or two after alleged HJ was executed.

3. What written records we do have we know were written down from related stories that were handed down orally*

4. What written records we do have contain additions, omissions and conflicts between them and within them.

5. Translators cannot even agree among themselves as to whether the translations of the written records we do have are accurate.

Have I missed anything?

This evidence for HJ looks razor thin to me!



*NOTE: w.r.t. #3, do we actually know this or are we assuming!

 

[GDon]

However apart from all of that - if you look in other letters from Paul, he makes very clear that he did not believe that "the Christ" was actually a normal human man at all. Instead he actually says (eg Philipians 2, 5-11, see the quote below) -

Philipians 2; 5-11 (quoted from Carrier on-the-H-of-J, page 533)

Have this in mind (of humble love) in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not decide to seize equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being made in the likeness of men, and being discovered as a man in outward form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, a death of a cross.

In that passage, the writer ("Paul") is very clearly saying that his belief in Jesus, is that he was not a human man. But instead was a form of the heavenly God himself, who simply made himself into "the likeness of man ... in outward form ...".

I believe that this is part of an "Adam Christology" that scholars like James Dunn have proposed. That is:

Adam -- in the image of God, Jesus -- in the form of God
Adam -- gave into temptation to grasp equality with God, Jesus -- resisted temptation
Adam -- disobeyed God, Jesus -- obedient to God

IOW, Paul believes that Jesus is a man, but a man like Adam, a new start for the human race. If you read Gen 3:

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
...
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...​

This reading of the passage is controversial, especially with those who want to read a pre-existent being into Paul. But it is consistent with Paul's equating Jesus with Adam elsewhere in his letters.

 

[Kapyong]

GDay GDon

There we disagree. I think a reader of Paul would see the "man" and "flesh" statements to indicate a man on earth.
Probably best to leave it there, since I don't think we are going to move from our respective positions! Thanks for your time (again!). No doubt we will have a further round sometime in the future. I'll look forward to it!

Well, thank YOU too

It's been a pleasure to have disagreed politely GDon. That's exactly what I would hope to experience in online fora. A little sad to find it's not as common as it could be, though.

Meanwhile, I will focus on the Sperm of David - I've already found quite a few interesting uses of metaphorical and/or heavenly sperm - especially this fascinating 'spermatic Logos' - sounds like a Big Clue.

You know, we've been doing this for longer than I thought look what I found on the internet :

Just a bit of friendly fun


Kapyong
(Hmmm, I hope that's not HUUUUGE.)

 

[Craig B]

So, if we boil this all down...

1. We know that we have no written records that are contemporaneous with the time of alleged HJ.

2. What written records we do have we know were not written until at least a generation or two after alleged HJ was executed.

3. What written records we do have we know were written down from related stories that were handed down orally*

4. What written records we do have contain additions, omissions and conflicts between them and within them.

5. Translators cannot even agree among themselves as to whether the translations of the written records we do have are accurate.

Have I missed anything?

This evidence for HJ looks razor thin to me!

*NOTE: w.r.t. #3, do we actually know this or are we assuming!

You have missed - in a remarkable way - the most important thing. What the written accounts actually say! We have nothing of Caesar's Gallic War, before a mediaeval copy. Why nevertheless do we treat it as an important source? Because of the words written in it, of course!

 

[Aepervius]

Your tone suggests that you take it for granted that there is no way even of approaching such a task, but I don't think that's true.

So long afterward without external source ? Yes I deem the task impossible.

Heck even today among the various books, you can trace who authored what (the "genealogical" tree of the various books is funny complex to read) but not say if the original has any veracity or fact from it. For that you would need an external confirmation. Otherwise all you can confirm is that yes "this" was the belief of the person. But factual ? Impossible to verify on the bible alone, no matter what "textual interpretation" people tell you.

 

[Myriad]

Has it occurred to anyone in this prior discussion to question whether or not the distinction under argument, between the Jesus narrative as a depiction of (possibly fictional) interactions between human beings on earth or as a depiction of (possibly fictional) interactions between angelic beings in heaven, is a distinction that can actually be made within the framework of the understanding of the times? Would such a distinction have had any meaning at all to the people writing and reading those accounts?

Everyday infectious disease had obviously physical consequences but was generally believed to have spiritual causes. Conceiving a baby requires a physical act but was generally believed to have spiritual import and consequences. The very physical phenomenon of weather could have spiritual causes (see for instance the story of Jonah). So when the Jesus narrative depicts Jesus calming the seas or healing the sick, would the original audience of that narrative interpret that as Jesus demonstrating mastery over the physical world, or the spiritual? If you asked them, would the question be comprehensible to them at all?

Let me ask this: were Mount Olympus and the halls of Valhalla considered to be real places or otherworldly spiritual planes? We might expect some difficulty in answering, given that even the Torah's heaven was implied to be reachable by a tall building made, presumably, out of very physical stone and wood.

Heck, consider the very act of breathing, part of the basis of physical metabolism. There's no way practical salt of the earth people, no matter how far back we go, could mistake that for a spiritual phenomenon. That's why the Latin word for "breath" is… uh oh, "spiritus."

Now, by Milton's time, well over a millennium later, we seem to be primed for comprehending narratives portraying complex metaphysical goings-on in heavenly otherworldly spiritual planes, while back on material earth we physical beings notice only an aurora or meteor shower or some distant volcanic plume. But in the times of Paul and gMark, the very existence of the metaphorical ground you're claiming, on one side or another of a clearly understandable distinction between heavenly and earthly events, is looking pretty doubtful to me.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Has it occurred to anyone in this prior discussion to question whether or not the distinction under argument, between the Jesus narrative as a depiction of (possibly fictional) interactions between human beings on earth or as a depiction of (possibly fictional) interactions between angelic beings in heaven, is a distinction that can actually be made within the framework of the understanding of the times? Would such a distinction have had any meaning at all to the people writing and reading those accounts?

...

Let me ask this: were Mount Olympus and the halls of Valhalla considered to be real places or otherworldly spiritual planes? We might expect some difficulty in answering, given that even the Torah's heaven was implied to be reachable by a tall building made, presumably, out of very physical stone and wood.

It's a good enough question. I'll try to answer it as well as I can.

Greeks tended to distinguish between everyday reality, and "mythical" reality. They weren't necessarily separate places, more like intertwined "sides" of the world. This understanding, AFAIK, influenced the Romans too, and they had many ways of understanding stories of the divine (generally, as allegories/metaphors for the powers of the gods, put in terms human can understand). At the same time, no one was ever far removed from the divine - great generals and statesmen were thought of as somewhat divine, emperors were deified, and so on.

I would assume Paul to understand this well enough. If he intended his pagan audience to understand Jesus as a purely cosmic being in a heavenly realm, I would have expected him to describe Jesus in a rather different manner. But his language of being born according to the flesh and having a brother suggests a connection to our everyday reality, rather than a purely "mythical" reality.

 

[Craig B]

So long afterward without external source ? Yes I deem the task impossible.

Heck even today among the various books, you can trace who authored what (the "genealogical" tree of the various books is funny complex to read) but not say if the original has any veracity or fact from it. For that you would need an external confirmation. Otherwise all you can confirm is that yes "this" was the belief of the person. But factual ? Impossible to verify on the bible alone, no matter what "textual interpretation" people tell you.

And if you do attend to what these people have to tell you?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Myriad and all

Thanks for your input, all 10,000 of you

Has it occurred to anyone in this prior discussion to question whether or not the distinction under argument, between the Jesus narrative as a depiction of (possibly fictional) interactions between human beings on earth or as a depiction of (possibly fictional) interactions between angelic beings in heaven, is a distinction that can actually be made within the framework of the understanding of the times? Would such a distinction have had any meaning at all to the people writing and reading those accounts?
...
But in the times of Paul and gMark, the very existence of the metaphorical ground you're claiming, on one side or another of a clearly understandable distinction between heavenly and earthly events, is looking pretty doubtful to me.

Yes, I agree it's an important point. We have discussed it (not yet on this thread though, thanks for bringing it up ) Paul and his readers WOULD have easily grasped the distinction between Earthly and Heavenly.

It's true that Mt Olympus was on earth, and the Torah imagines heaven as reachable physically, but they are old views, and by Paul's time views about heaven were much more complex and clearly DID show a distinction between Earth and the Heaven(s).

The Greek view e.g. Plutarch et al, at the time was rather like this :

Consider the various Jewish books from Paul's time which described a journey from Earth up through various heavens - like the Vision of Isaiah, or 2 Enoch - with quite different numbers of heavens. It's clear there is a distinction between Earth and Heaven(s). So I think Paul's view would be rather similar to the Greeks :

Although a larger number of heavens was popular - such as seven or nine or ten in various works - it seems more likely that Paul's reference to the Third Heaven meant the highest heaven, rather than merely the Third of Seven Heavens :

These various Jewish schemes of heavens are not seen to correspond to the physical planetary spheres of the (slightly later) Ptolemy :

So, yes, there was a clear understanding of the difference between Heaven and Earth to Paul's readers.

I argue that Paul placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in Paradise in the Third Heaven (Pi3H) - a place clearly distinct from Earth (even though the original Paradise was in earth.)


Kapyong