For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[David Mo]

Agreed. To ask if X existed it is necessary to have some concept of X. And in the case of Jesus that concept can only come from the gospel narratives -- and so the "quest" is skewed from the start.

"Having been of a woman " is not many different of "having been born of a woman". Is it not? What other meaning can the sentence have in this context?

"Born" translation is consistent with:
Romans 1:3-4; "...regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord".
Ibid 5:15: "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"
Ibid 5:19: "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous".
1 Cor 15:21: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man".

 

[David Mo]

I agreed long ago that Paul saw Jesus as a 'man'.
(He also saw him as a Son Of God, remember ?)

I argue that Paul saw Jesus Christ as a heavenly man - a MAN, but not on Earth.

I would like you can provide the quotes that support the concept of "heavenly man" (born of woman, died in the cross, etc.) All these pauline expressions point straightforward to an earthly man.

 

[David Mo]

Gday David Mo and all

It makes perfect sense, as Mcreal's post demonstrated :

OTHER than apostles, I saw Brother James​

There ARE other passages that refer to 'Brothers of the Lord' in Paul e.g. 1 Cor. 9:5.

Excuse me, but Galatians 1:19 says: ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου (brother of the Lord).

I repeat: in this context "Brother James" has not sense. It doesn't specify anything. Paul is not saying "a certain James" or "James the Christian" but “this” James (an important one, indeed).

What are those "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 9:5? I doubt you can identify them. Other blood brothers of Jesus? Why not?

 

[David Mo]

Paul also thought Jesus Christ was the Son Of GOD - and GOD lives in heaven, therefore Jesus Christ MUST be heavenly !
QED !

The problem is not if Paul thought that Jesus was a heavenly being. He thought so. The problem is if he thought that Jesus became a man. Yes he became.
This is the inverted way of Enoch that was a man raised to the Heaven by Yahveh. Jesus descends from the Heaven and became a servant of God in the Earth (Philippians 2:6-11). (Finally he would be raised again, but this is another story).

Gday David Mo and all
Like the woman who gave birth in Rev. ?
Were she and her child physical historical humans ?
Kapyong

I don’t think the author of Revelation was thinking in real monsters, whores, etc. Don’t mix visionary literature with epistles. Paul distinguishes between his own visions and real men and what matters in our debate is if Paul said to have met a real brother of Jesus.

Excuse me, but I think that sometimes you lose sight of the roots of the problem.

 

[Mcreal]

What are those "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 9:5? I doubt you can identify them. Other blood brothers of Jesus? Why not?

The Catholic church (& also many Protestant traditions) says Mary had no more children.

There is little correlation between the various James of Paul and the various James of the Synoptics. The Synoptic Gospels, similarly to the Epistle to the Galatians, recognize a core group of three disciples (Peter, John and James) having the same names as those given by Paul. In the list of the disciples found in the Gospels, two disciples whose names are James, the son of Alphaeus and James, son of Zebedee are mentioned in the list of the twelve disciples: (Matthew 10:1–4)

And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.​

The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew elsewhere also mention a James as Jesus' brother:

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."​

According to the surviving fragments of the work Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord of the Apostolic Father Papias of Hierapolis, who lived circa 70-163 AD, "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus" would be the mother of James the Just, Simon, Judas (identified as Jude the Apostle), and Joseph (Joses). Papias identifies this "Mary" as the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus, and thus as the maternal aunt of Jesus. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html


Jerome concluded that James "the brother of the Lord", (Galatians 1:19) is therefore James, son of Alphaeus, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, and the son of Mary Cleophas.


In two small but potentially important works, On the Twelve Apostles of Christ and On the Seventy Apostles of Christ, Hippolytus relates the following:

"And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in Jerusalem was stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple."​

 

[David Mo]

Yet as Albert Schweitzer himself pointed out, all the earliest references to Jesus derive from the one tradition, Christianity itself. So we have no independent sources for Jesus. Moreover, the genre and contents of the sources we do have present Jesus as an unnatural human to say the least, and even the historical context in which he is set is problematic (cf the timid Pilate of the gospels). Moreover, we do not know who the authors of these earliest accounts were beyond the self-witness of the writings themselves, or in the case of the gospels, not even that. Nor do we have clear ideas about their dates of composition nor their original audiences. And their sources appear often to be literary (or mystical visions in the case of Paul).

So we do not have the quality or type of evidence in the case of Jesus that gives us grounds for confidence in the historicity of Socrates.

If the above argument is valid then I think we can say that if we assess the historicity of Socrates and Jesus by the same standards then we have to conclude we have good reasons to be confident in Socrates' historicity but nothing comparable for Jesus' historicity.

A very strong case can also be made for the evidence for Pythagoras in comparison with the evidence for Jesus.

In general I agree, but some criteria seem doubtous. Making unnatural things is not a criterion to refuse a historical character as real. Pharaohs,kings, magicians, philosophers, etc. made miraculous deeds and we don't think that they didn't exist. Simply we apply a methodical scepticism to these fantastic deeds (and other not so miraculous but uncredible anyway).

Some ilustrate Christians or "agnostic" historians have thought that they can reach the real Jesus in erasing his uncredible deeds. That is a priori plausible, but this is not their sole problem. (First of all: What is "uncredible"?).

In any case, historian's method is one and sufficient to distinguish between facts and myths.

 

[David Mo]

The Catholic church (& also many Protestant traditions) says Mary had no more children.

There is little correlation between the various James of Paul and the various James of the Synoptics. The Synoptic Gospels, similarly to the Epistle to the Galatians, recognize a core group of three disciples (Peter, John and James) having the same names as those given by Paul. In the list of the disciples found in the Gospels, two disciples whose names are James, the son of Alphaeus and James, son of Zebedee are mentioned in the list of the twelve disciples: (Matthew 10:1–4)

And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.​

The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew elsewhere also mention a James as Jesus' brother:

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."​

According to the surviving fragments of the work Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord of the Apostolic Father Papias of Hierapolis, who lived circa 70-163 AD, "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus" would be the mother of James the Just, Simon, Judas (identified as Jude the Apostle), and Joseph (Joses). Papias identifies this "Mary" as the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus, and thus as the maternal aunt of Jesus. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html


Jerome concluded that James "the brother of the Lord", (Galatians 1:19) is therefore James, son of Alphaeus, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, and the son of Mary Cleophas.


In two small but potentially important works, On the Twelve Apostles of Christ and On the Seventy Apostles of Christ, Hippolytus relates the following:

"And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in Jerusalem was stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple."​

What you say is interesting, but you know that the Christian literature became more and more legendary when it separates from the originary sources. There are many contradictions and differences between Paul and the gospels. The attribution of identities in Acts, gospels and in post-testamentary literature, seems very doubtous. Let us stay in epistles, please.

 

[Mcreal]

Excuse me, but Galatians 1:19 says: ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου (brother of the Lord).

I repeat: in this context "Brother James" has not sense. It doesn't specify anything. Paul is not saying "a certain James" or "James the Christian" but “this” James (an important one, indeed).

See - http://biblehub.com/galatians/1-19.htm

What are those "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 9:5? I doubt you can identify them. Other blood brothers of Jesus? Why not?

Given 1 Corinthians 9:5 =

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife/sister, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?​

It seems more likely it means brethren. Note, again, that Cephas is not defined as a 'brother of the Lord'.

 

[Mcreal]

What you say is interesting, but you know that the Christian literature became more and more legendary when it separates from the originary sources. There is many contradictions and differences between Paul and the gospels. The attribution of identities in Acts, gospels and in post-testamentary literature, seems very doubtous. Let us stay in epistles, please.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus#Etymology -

The etymology of the word "brother" (adelphos) originally comes from "of the same womb" (a-delphys),[18] although in New Testament usage, the Christian and Jewish meaning of "brothers" is wider, and is applied even to members of the same religious community.[19] In the Bible, the Greek words adelphos and adelphe were not restricted to their literal meaning of a full brother or sister nor were their plurals.[20]

There are several views from an early date over whether the Greek term adelphos, applied in these accounts to people described as adelphoi of Jesus, means that they were full brothers, half brothers, stepbrothers, or cousins. Helvidius, quoting Tertullian in support of his view, claims that the adelphoi were children of Mary and Joseph born after Jesus;[7][21] yet Jerome replied that Tertullian did "not belong to the Church", and he argues that the adelphoi were Jesus's cousins.[22] Some scholars consider Helvidius' view as the most natural inference from the New Testament.[7] In support to this it is occasionally noted that James (Jacob Iakobos) as oldest of the brothers takes the name of Joseph's father (also James, Iakobos in the Solomonic genealogy of Jesus in Matthew), when in Bible times the grandson occasionally gets the name of the grandfather.[23]

The term adelphos (brother in general) is distinct from anepsios (cousin, nephew, niece).[24][25] Second-century Christian writer Hegesippus distinguishes between those who were anepsioi of Jesus and his adelphoi.[26] However Jesus and his disciples' native language was Aramaic (as in Matthew 27:46; Mark 5:41),[27] which could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin.[28] Aramaic, like Biblical Hebrew, does not contain a word for "cousin".[29]

 

[Craig B]

We have a "born" Jesus "descended in the flesh", with brothers, a mother and father, in the Synoptic gospels. The people who wrote such things believed Jesus to have been a physical human being. If someone says, yes he was a physical human being, but dwelt in the heavens, or in some celestial sphere, I want to see evidence for that. I don't think it is there. It may have been stated that Jesus was killed by supernatural evil forces, but that is consistent with physical crucifixion, because it is often believed that the devil acts through evil human beings in performing his crimes.

 

[Mcreal]

"descended in the flesh" is about the genealogy, which is likely made up.

 

[David Mo]

Excuse me, but Galatians 1:19 says: ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου (brother of the Lord).
I repeat: in this context "Brother James" has not sense. It doesn't specify anything. Paul is not saying "a certain James" or "James the Christian" but “this” James (an important one, indeed).
What are those "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 9:5? I doubt you can identify them. Other blood brothers of Jesus? Why not?

It seems more likely it means brethren. Note, again, that Cephas is not defined as a 'brother of the Lord'.

Of course, but in what sense of “brethren”?
Your answer doesn’t clarify my question.

NOTE: Wikipedia is not an authority on complex problems with strong ideological implications. Most sources that I have consulted say that ἀδελφὸν has a two senses in Paul: spiritual brothers and blood brothers. The first meaning is dismissed in this context by the reasons I have stated above.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday David Mo and all

I would like you can provide the quotes that support the concept of "heavenly man" (born of woman, died in the cross, etc.)

Paul is FILLED with heavenly and spiritual references, as I keep pointing out.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to show where Paul connects Jesus to Earth -

Does Paul give any Earthly PLACES ? Jerusalem? Nazareth ? Bethlehem ?
No.

Does Paul give any Earthly DATES ? Jesus' birth ? Speeches ? Crucifixion ?
No.

Does Paul give any Earthly NAMES ? Mary ? Joseph ? Pilate ? Lazarus ?
No.

The argument boils down to :

• X does happen on Earth, therefore X MUST have happened to Jesus Christ on Earth

It's a rubbish argument, whether it's applied to birth, man, crucifixion, sperm or anything else. The mere fact that these things DO happen on Earth does NOT prove they can NOT happen in Heaven. These times believed in heavens filled with beings and actions and objects and punishments.

You seem to believe that Paul's phrase 'born of woman' is a slam-dunk evidence of an earthly historical Jesus Christ - well David Mo - WHO was the woman according to Paul ? Why do you believe he means Mary when he says he allegorically means Hagar :

Paul tells us in Galatians 4:1

"I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. "​

Paul goes on to describe an allegory of mothers and sons :

Gal 4:22 ' For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, ​

Here we see explicit allegory about two mothers :

• Hagar, under the slavery of the law, who is an allegory of Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem
• Jerusalem above, an allegory who is free, and she is our mother.

Paul is apparently saying :

• Jesus Christ the son-of-God was born allegorically to Hagar, under the law, in the earthly Jerusalem.
• Christians are re-born allegorically in Jerusalem above.

It's an allegory, and nothing to do with a historical Mary or anything else.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday David Mo and all

The problem is not if Paul thought that Jesus was a heavenly being.

Well, that IS exactly the issue that I am discussing - between :

• an EARTHLY Jesus, vs
• a HEAVENLY Jesus.

Everyone agrees Jesus was a man (and a son of God too.)


Kapyong

 

[Craig B]

"descended in the flesh" is about the genealogy, which is likely made up.

It is very certainly "made up". These people made up a genealogy by which Jesus was descended from David. They wanted to depict him to be a messiah, the seed of David. If that genealogy was false, as it was, does that mean that Jesus wasn't descended from anyone at all?

If I say I'm descended from King George IV, and you prove I'm not, does that mean you've proved that I have no human ancestry whatsoever, and that I am therefore an angel or spirit?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Craig B and all

We have a "born" Jesus "descended in the flesh", with brothers, a mother and father, in the Synoptic gospels. The people who wrote such things believed Jesus to have been a physical human being. If someone says, yes he was a physical human being, but dwelt in the heavens, or in some celestial sphere, I want to see evidence for that. I don't think it is there. It may have been stated that Jesus was killed by supernatural evil forces, but that is consistent with physical crucifixion, because it is often believed that the devil acts through evil human beings in performing his crimes.

Pardon me Craig B I think you are mixing up some claims - of course the Gospels have a physical Earthly Jesus Christ. There are no claims of a heavenly physical being (unless we want to talk about the type of 'flesh' that gods have.)

Here is how I see it :

HEAVENLY Spirit Jesus Christ - Paul and the earliest Christians

MYTHICAL Earthly Jesus Christ - G.Mark based on Paul and LXX

PHANTASM Earthly Jesus Christ - docetics (who were forced by the popular Gospel stories to add 'earthly' to their 'spiritual' Jesus and ended up with bizarro illusary Jesus Christ.)

HISTORICAL Earthly Jesus Christ - the winners, after they crushed everyone else.


The main argument now is whether Paul saw Jesus as :

• a spiritual being in Heaven, or
• a physical man and son-of-God on Earth.

Kapyong

 

[HansMustermann]

I think you'll find very few people here who are trying to have that cake and eat it, too.

Well, there used to be a couple, but that was not the main point. The main point is that there's still an implicit expectation that you can take this or that from the gospels and assume it's based on some kind of chain of oral evidence, to arrive at that historical jesus reconstruction. The whole field of bible studies does that, Ehrman included. But once you have a super stealth Jesus that nobody had heard about, that assumption becomes mighty fragile. Is all I'm saying.

 

[HansMustermann]

We have a "born" Jesus "descended in the flesh", with brothers, a mother and father, in the Synoptic gospels. The people who wrote such things believed Jesus to have been a physical human being. If someone says, yes he was a physical human being, but dwelt in the heavens, or in some celestial sphere, I want to see evidence for that. I don't think it is there. It may have been stated that Jesus was killed by supernatural evil forces, but that is consistent with physical crucifixion, because it is often believed that the devil acts through evil human beings in performing his crimes.

That they believed it, may well be the case. The question is if it can be supported that they based it on any kind of evidence.

Otherwise, you won't find a shortage of nutcases that believe all sorts of crazy stuff. As I was saying, about 20% believe that Sherlock Holmes or Miss Marple were real, even in an age where that's trivial to check. Hell, about 3% believed that Clark Kent was real in a poll.

I dunno... if in an age where literacy is the norm and such information is trivial to check, 3% believe that frikken SUPERMAN was real, I fail to see why one nutter in 1st century CE Rome getting the ball running by mistaking the superman-Jesus for real is even relevant.

 

[David Mo]

Paul is FILLED with heavenly and spiritual references, as I keep pointing out.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to show where Paul connects Jesus to Earth -

(...)

Paul almost never mentions in the epistles a specific event of Jesus' life. Not of the kind you ask for. We don't know wether he didn't know about this life or he didn't consider it important. Neither Thomas' Gospel is a biographical account. This doesn't refute that Paul considered Jesus Christ a heavenly being that became an earthly man. All the expressions: to be a man, born of a woman, being in the flesh, brother of Lord, crucified, line of David, etc. that we have quoted here are pointing in the same direction. But if you arbitrarely add "spiritual" or "heavenly" to each of them you are distorting their original sense with other purely imaginary. One cannot do anything against this irrational strategy. If any reference to Jerusalem were done you can say: "This is the heavenly Jerusalem". Your strategy is invincible. Your kingdom is not from this world.

 

[David Mo]

HISTORICAL Earthly Jesus Christ - the winners, after they crushed everyone else.

What winners? Who were those defeated?