pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Apparently the II John Epistle was written in the 1st century, correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Apparently the II John Epistle was written in the 1st century, correct me if I'm wrong, please.
I don't mean that Paul isn't sincere, but that he's not correct in invoking supernatural sources of anything whatsoever. Thus, not bring correct about this, he may well also be incorrect in flatly and absolutely stating that he received no information about Jesus from any living person, if indeed he did state that.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
pakeha
It is unclear that ancient docetism necessarily differed in "mythicism" from the huge surviving docetist cult, Islam. That is, someone can believe (as 1 billion living people do) that Jesus was a real person who only seemed to die. An early example would be the beliefs attributed to Basilides of Alexandria, that canonical Mark actually records the crucifixion of Simon of Cyrene, the man recruited to carry Jesus' burden when Jesus stumbled (or pretended to?).
Very amusing, but reliance on a looney reading of Mark is also a clear sign that this version of docetism is a reinterpretation of the historical claims of mainstream Christianity, not their source. (Then again, Basilides' reading is no loonier than some readings of Mark, Epiphanius and Paul's letters that have been offered with a straight face here at JREF.)
ETA
Craig
It is no more remarkable that Paul would find personal meaning in his visions and reading than that I would find personal meaning in Picasso's Guernica, Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor or Frost's Mending Wall.
Of course, you might examine those same stimuli and find different meaning than I do, or no meaning at all. OK, but even if you reckon me mistaken because of our disagreement about the interpretation of these things, you still do not reckon me mistaken about my sources.
And more to the point, you wouldn't find my comments about the meaning of creative products of the human mind to have any relevance to the implications of other statements i might utter, such as
~ I believe Picasso and Frost to have been roughly contemporary, but Bach was dead, and
~ I completed high school in the United States.
The problem, as I understand it, is to find traces of a mythical Jesus cult before the rise of the historical Jesus cult (to which Ignatius and the author of 2 John belonged). That is, MJ becoming "terrestialized" rather than yet another step in the supernatural amplification of HJ.
It is unclear that ancient docetism necessarily differed in "mythicism" from the huge surviving docetist cult, Islam. That is, someone can believe (as 1 billion living people do) that Jesus was a real person who only seemed to die. An early example would be the beliefs attributed to Basilides of Alexandria, that canonical Mark actually records the crucifixion of Simon of Cyrene, the man recruited to carry Jesus' burden when Jesus stumbled (or pretended to?).
Very amusing, but reliance on a looney reading of Mark is also a clear sign that this version of docetism is a reinterpretation of the historical claims of mainstream Christianity, not their source. (Then again, Basilides' reading is no loonier than some readings of Mark, Epiphanius and Paul's letters that have been offered with a straight face here at JREF.)
ETA
Craig
Supernatural is an interpretation which we the living place on what a long-dead man wrote. He wrote that he had visions. People do, in fact, have visions, and so far as we can tell, did in his time, too. He wrote that he read the Jewish scriptures. The scriptures he says he read exist today and existed in his time.
It is no more remarkable that Paul would find personal meaning in his visions and reading than that I would find personal meaning in Picasso's Guernica, Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor or Frost's Mending Wall.
Of course, you might examine those same stimuli and find different meaning than I do, or no meaning at all. OK, but even if you reckon me mistaken because of our disagreement about the interpretation of these things, you still do not reckon me mistaken about my sources.
And more to the point, you wouldn't find my comments about the meaning of creative products of the human mind to have any relevance to the implications of other statements i might utter, such as
~ I believe Picasso and Frost to have been roughly contemporary, but Bach was dead, and
~ I completed high school in the United States.
Last edited:
Re the highlight - of course Paul might have had all sorts of conversations about his messiah preaching, with all sorts of people. But the problem is that he makes zero mention of any such relevant conversations. And none of the other people you named in Jerusalem (or anyone else) described having told Paul anything about any of them knowing Jesus either. So there is zero evidence of any such relevant conversations.
And for you to assume that any of those people could tell Paul first hand knowledge of Jesus, means you are simply assuming Jesus existed in the first place. Otherwise, all that anyone could have possibly told Paul would have been just their beliefs.
But before I think you said the following -
But that is clearly not true either, not if by “obtained information” you are trying to claim that he must have been given evidence of a living Jesus from people who actually knew such evidence for themselves.
It may be perfectly reasonably to think that if Paul met various “pillars of the church” in Jerusalem, then they probably discussed their messiah beliefs. But that is a million miles from concluding that any of those people must have met Jesus and told Paul about it.
For one thing, Paul actually seems to criticise certain church leaders saying they believed that various different people had been the actual messiah, not just the Jesus figure whom Paul preached. See the wiki quote below. So on that basis it seems they were actually arguing amongst themselves about opposing messiah beliefs.
But in any case, there is zero evidence that any of those people ever wrote to credibly claim that they actually met Jesus and could tell Paul about it.
So the best that anyone can honestly say about the claimed meetings in Jerusalem is that although they never said so, they may have discussed their various messiah beliefs … but where none of them ever claimed to have met Jesus, none of them claimed to have told Paul about meeting Jesus, and where Paul never says anyone told him anything about meeting Jesus. There is no evidence there of Jesus. At best there is only evidence of religious beliefs, and it actually seems like a range of differing messiah beliefs.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 corinthians 1:10-18
1 Corinthians 1:10-18
New International Version (NIV)
A Church Divided Over Leaders
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Failing which, we must accept Paul's account of being in the third heaven, or interacting with Jesus in the form of a light in the noonday sky?
No of course not. Whatever gave you that idea.
What we should "accept" is that the evidence in Paul's letters says that this person ("Paul") believed that he had a vision from God which revealed to him the true meaning of the messiah hidden in the ancient scriptures.
He believed God had chosen to reveal that to him. And that is what he preached as his “gospel”.
What nonsense!!
Please, just go and read the Epistles.
The Pauline Jesus was a Ghost.
1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV
But if his belief about revelations from God was false, why should his belief that he didn't receive information from any living people (which is grossly improbable) be true?
You appear to have no understanding of the meaning of Myth.
Jesus of Nazareth is a Myth like Romulus of Rome.
Plus, it is simply a fallacy that there are pre 70 CE stories of Jesus.
No manuscript or Codex about Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul has ever been found and dated to the 1st century pre 70 CE.
The earliest story of Jesus show him walking on the sea and transfiguring in the presence of TWO resurrected Ghosts [Spirits], Moses and Elijah.
In the Pauline Corpus, Jesus was a Ghost [a Spirit].
When did the Liar Paul actually have revelations?
Because his letters clearly tell you that he got the ideas from what he thought was meant in the written scriptures. The OT scriptures were real enough. They were not known only as supernatural visions. And like all Jewish preachers of that period, Paul seems to have spent all day every day attempting to decipher and preach what he thought was written as divine God-given prophecy in the OT. Paul simply believed that God had blessed him with a vision and the true revelation of messianic prophecy in scripture.
And it is not "grossly improbable" that Paul would not have "received information from any living people". He might have had all sorts of discussions with other people about his beliefs and about their beliefs. But that is, as I say, a million miles from you claiming that these other people must have personally known Jesus and told Paul about witnessing Jesus. Because there is zero evidence of anyone even ever credibly claiming to have met Jesus, let alone any evidence of any of them writing to say they had told Paul all about it. So as I said before, any suggestion of that sort is total non-starter anyway.
That is crackers. Paul describes contact with the James group. But we must reject any idea that he obtained information from them unless and until we find a written declaration by one of this group that they gave Paul such information. Eh? They go on a jaunt to Antioch. Paul with Barnabas, sent from Jerusalem, and "prophets" sent from Jerusalem, in the common task of preaching in Antioch; but unless we find a letter from Barnabas, or from one or more of the prophets, stating what they told Paul, we must assume that Paul received no information from them?
In addition, we have this.
It is in this context that one must read
These expressions do not simply denote a more effective way of understanding the OT. They are direct revelations, outside of any text, of the presence of god. One clue is the hearing of inexpressible things in paradise. That is not a description of reading Isaiah 53 or Psalms 22.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
"The problem, as I understand it, is to find traces of a mythical Jesus cult before the rise of the historical Jesus cult (to which Ignatius and the author of 2 John belonged). That is, MJ becoming "terrestialized" rather than yet another step in the supernatural amplification of HJ."
There we are yet again teetering on the abyss of the 1st century's documentation. So little has survived the destructions of the records of Rome and Jerusalem, not to mention Alexandria and Antioch, that we're reduced to scrabbling amidst the shred and tatters left us.
Sometimes I feel as though Umberto Eco understood far more than is decent in that novel of his, The Name of the Rose.
Anyway.
That second epistle of John is dated 80-95 CE, IIRC and it's actually one of the earliest documents we have that deals with the beliefs of the early Christians. As I mentioned, I first came across it today. I've not seen any discussion of it and its implications and my Google fu has been rendered useless by Sunday sloth and a very decent Rioja.
In fact,as I think more on the subject, the less I think we know about Jesus. The hagiography is practically impenetrable, permitting only glimpses of what may or may not have been a real human beneath the trappings of a misunderstood Messiah-ship.
Humanisation of a myth or mythification of a human?
After reading the texts I've posted up today I know even less on the subject than before. Still, I'm looking forward to what I can learn in the future.
Off to read more about the Acts and Epistles of John.
Of course it is not crackers. You are talking about Paul "obtaining information from them". Well of course he might have "obtained information from them" in the sense of them all discussing what they believed about the messiah. But there is precisely zero evidence that they could have ever discussed any more than their religious beliefs!
You are trying to claim that you have evidence to show that these people had much more than just their beliefs, and that in fact they had known Jesus and told Paul about it. But you have absolutely no evidence of any such thing. If you claim anything at all like that you are most certainly guilty of just making it up lol.
You are simply trying to assume Jesus into existence because you want him to be true despite the fact that there is no evidence for anyone ever even claiming to have met Jesus. If you say anyone met Jesus then you must show the evidence of any such person ever writing to credibly claim that they had personally known Jesus. Where is that evidence? There simply isn’t any!
There’s plenty of evidence to show that Paul and the Gospel authors wrote all manner of untrue fiction about Jesus. That much is unarguable. And there is equally clear evidence to show that all those biblical writers were simply not credible as “witnesses” to what they wrote about Jesus. There is again abundant evidence of that, ie showing why those authors were so hopelessly unreliable and untrustworthy. But what is completely lacking is any evidence showing that any of those authors ever knew Jesus or ever met anyone else who ever reliably claimed to have known Jesus.
That’s evidence of peoples religious beliefs. There is abundant evidence of what they believed. But there is zero evidence of anyone ever meeting a living Jesus (let alone telling Paul all about it!).
But that's not what you've been saying. You have quoted Paul as follows, insisting that it must be true
Now you're stating he did consult other human beings.
No I am not! You keep totally inventing things!
I am not ”stating he did consult other human beings" for his information about Jesus. You really must stop claiming such untruths.
What I said was that if Paul met other religious believers in Jerusalem, as you are saying, then of course it's entirely possible they discussed their religious beliefs.
But what you are claiming is not that they merely discussed their religious beliefs. You are claiming that these people had met Jesus and they were the source of Paul's knowledge about Jesus.
You have absolutely no evidence that any of those people ever did know Jesus or ever told Paul any such thing.
And nor do you have any evidence that Paul ever claimed that any of them had told him anything at all about Jesus.
Since you have persisted with this claim for many posts now, you absolutely must back-up your claim by quoting the evidence of where any of those people, ever claimed to have met a human Jesus, and where Paul ever claimed that he had learned about Jesus because those people told him about Jesus. So where is this evidence of what you keep claiming?
Please quote any of those people in Jerusalem who credibly wrote to claim they were the ones who met Jesus and told Paul about it.
Please quote where Paul ever said that he learned about Jesus because people in Jerusalem told him about their meetings with Jesus.
You are constantly posting here by pure invention. You are making it up!
You are repeatedly claiming that I said and implied things that I had never said or implied. And you are constantly claiming to know that people in Jerusalem had known Jesus and told Paul about it, even though you just purely and entirely invented all of that with zero evidence, and incidentally, in 100% flat-out contradiction to what it says in Paul’s letters where he stresses that he did not consult any other human for his information about Jesus.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
I think the repeated conflations that you and Dejudge make of HJ and Christ Jesus don't help.
You also stated this.
If that's not consulting, I know not what is!
You are doing it yet again. Completely making things up and claiming people said things which they never said at all.
You are the one who said that Paul had “consulted” (your word, not mine!) these people who you claim had met Jesus and who had told Paul about Jesus. I never said Paul had “consulted” those people or anyone else to learn about Jesus.
Please quote where I ever said Paul had "consulted" anyone in Jerusalem in order to learn about them meeting Jesus.
If you are going to continually claim, as you have for many posts now, that these people had met Jesus and told Paul all about their meetings with Jesus, then you must now back up your claim with the evidence -
Please quote the evidence where any of those people ever reliably claimed they had met Jesus.
Please quote the evidence where any of them ever claimed they were the ones who told Paul about Jesus.
Please quote the evidence where Paul says he found out about Jesus because people in Jerusalem had met Jesus and they had told Paul about Jesus.
According to Acts, Paul received a commission from the High Priest in Jerusalem to persecute followers of the Cult. He apparently beat and tortured them. I'm guessing he might learn some of their Theology that way, if it ever happened.
Paul talks of spending time with Cephas and James in Jerusalem (several weeks in fact) early in his career. A new Convert with two of the heads of the Cult, and you don't think they talked about their recently executed friend "Jesus"? Really?
OK. I guess you'll argue that any "Jesus" that they did talk about was some sort of ghost up in heaven or something. But then you'll have to explain how a ghost can be "Delivered up" to the Authorities, how a ghost can break bread and pass wine around, and how a ghost can hand out teachings on Marriage and Divorce...
- Status