proudfootz
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 957
Perhaps.
I'm usually treated to
"[untrue statement], you *********** douchebag ****** moron."
Using hyperbole, of course...
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps.
I'm usually treated to
"[untrue statement], you *********** douchebag ****** moron."
Using hyperbole, of course...
@dejudge: You are jumping around two very different questions: history vs myth and humanity vs divinity, and treating both as exclusive (myth excludes history, divinity excludes humanity).
All I am talking about is whether Paul believed that Jesus was born a human being. That is an entirely separate question from whether Jesus was actually historical. You claim that Paul does not view Jesus as born a human being; he only views him as a spiritual divine being. What Paul actually writes is very much different.
Look at the examples you give. Adam. Clearly a figment from a myth. So, mythical ... Not historical. But human? Yes. Adam was a human in the myth. He has to be, he was the progenitor of the human race in the myth.
Zeus. Clearly mythical. Not historical. But human? No. Well, mostly no. If you were a euhemerist, you would say .... yes, human, and, historical. I am not a euhemerist, though.
Your favorite example of Gaius. His claim to be a brother of Jupiter? That's a mythical claim. So myth, right? Gaius was mythical, not historical. And not human. Lets get to revising those history textbooks!
So what of Jesus? We have a number of options. Like Zeus, he could have been a purely mythical figure AND non-human. Or, like Adam, he could have been a mythical figure and human (within the myth). Or, like Gaius, he could have been historical and human (outside the myth) who became viewed in mythical terms.
My only point here is that Paul, whether or not there was a HJ, regarded Jesus was born a human being.
All I am talking about is whether Paul believed that Jesus was born a human being. That is an entirely separate question from whether Jesus was actually historical. You claim that Paul does not view Jesus as born a human being; he only views him as a spiritual divine being. What Paul actually writes is very much different.
Look at the examples you give. Adam. Clearly a figment from a myth. So, mythical ... Not historical. But human? Yes. Adam was a human in the myth. He has to be, he was the progenitor of the human race in the myth.
Zeus. Clearly mythical. Not historical. But human? No. Well, mostly no. If you were a euhemerist, you would say .... yes, human, and, historical. I am not a euhemerist, though.
Your favorite example of Gaius. His claim to be a brother of Jupiter? That's a mythical claim. So myth, right? Gaius was mythical, not historical. And not human. Lets get to revising those history textbooks!
So what of Jesus? We have a number of options. Like Zeus, he could have been a purely mythical figure AND non-human. Or, like Adam, he could have been a mythical figure and human (within the myth). Or, like Gaius, he could have been historical and human (outside the myth) who became viewed in mythical terms.
My only point here is that Paul, whether or not there was a HJ, regarded Jesus was born a human being.
I don’t know if you have seen the video I linked, where bible scholar John Huddlestun is interviewed by Richard Dawkins, but in that interview Huddlestun says it’s a well known fact that from early Greco-Roman times/culture, anyone who was important was almost always said to have a god as his father but to be born of a human mother. There’s a relevant quote and a link to the video below, and the most directly relevant statements appear from about 25min. 45sec. (the whole video is of course directly relevant in the overall context of the reliability of the OT, NT and Jesus) -
John Huddlestun interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21NoQuKTB8Q
“ The idea that your father was a god and your mother a human woman was extremely common in the Greco-Roman period. Anyone who was important at all, whether an Emperor, or Philosopher, or Athlete. If you were anyone important then you would of course have been born of a god and your mother would have been a woman. This was extremely common. The surprising thing would have been if a Gospel writer chose NOT to say that Jesus was born of God with a woman. “
If that is correct, then obviously we cannot use the statement in Galatians where Paul says of “God’s Son”, that he was “born of a woman”, to mean that Paul knew such a thing to be literally true. In that Greco-Roman tradition/belief, a statement like that just means that Paul, or more accurately his anonymous copyist author circa.200AD, simply follows the common tradition of the time and assumes that since this was actually “God’s Son” then he must automatically be born of a woman but with God himself as the father.
As Huddlestun (who does believe in a HJ) says - “the surprise would have been if any Gospel writer chose NOT to say that Jesus was born of God with a woman. “
It does not mean that Paul or any gospel writer had the faintest idea who Jesus was or who his mother was really supposed to be. And afaik, certainly Paul at least, does not try to name the “mother”.
It might be a different matter if Paul had named the mother and given some actual details of Jesus or his mother and brothers/family that could have been conceivably verified in any reliable way. But of course he did not. As almost all commentators have pointed out, whether pro or anti HJ, the conspicuous thing about Paul’s letters is that he really knows virtually nothing about any real living Jesus - practically everything that Paul says about his belief in Jesus is theological and not realistic … in fact, perhaps everything he says about his messiah belief is theological rather than ever factual or earthly.
That really only leaves us with the gospels. But as Huddlestun remarks in that video, g-Mathew is constantly using what bible scholars and historians call “Citation Fulfilment Formulae”. That is; the author of g-Mathew obtained his stories of Jesus by simply searching the words of the OT for any passage which he decided could be applied to his expectation of Jesus. As Huddlestun says (I paraphrase from memory, but check the video) “it did not matter that the actual passage in the OT was clearly not about Jesus but about some other figure or event, g-Mathew simply decided to reproduce or interpret that as if it was about Jesus. And he did that not just with actual prophecies, but with any other parts of the OT that he wished to use”.
In respect of which, afaik everyone agrees that g-Mathew is in fact just an expanded version of g-Mark. That is; g-Mark was also doing that exact same thing, i.e. looking in the OT for any passage that he wished to interpret as an act of Jesus. As I have said here several times; Randel Helms wrote a complete book showing how, why, and where the gospel writers took their Jesus stories from the OT (Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions).
If as all NT scholars seem to agree, Paul’s Letters pre-date the gospels and are the earliest known mention of Jesus, then it’s obvious that later gospel writers producing g-Mark and g-Mathew etc., may have got that idea of searching the OT for Jesus stories, from what had already been written as Paul’s letters. Where the letters repeatedly stress that Paul obtained all his knowledge of Jesus “from no man”, “not of human origin”, “I was not told it by anyone”, ”nor was I taught it by anyone”, but what he preached as his gospel of Jesus, which was “we preach Christ risen”, was known to Paul by “revelation from the Lord himself” and always “according to scripture” through that “which is written” etc.
If the gospel writers knew that Paul had said the belief in Jesus was according to scripture, and because “it is written”, then it is obvious that might have been the reason they scoured the OT for whatever passages they wanted to apply to what were clearly invented Jesus stories.
Finally on the issue of “God’s Son” being “born of a woman” - in Colossians 1:15 Paul says of the “Son” that he was "the firstborn of all creation" and he was “before all things“ etc ., see the quotes below. That is not really compatible with this same “Son“ being born of a normal living woman close to Paul’s own time.
Colossians 1:15
15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it was the good pleasure [of the Father] that in him should all the fulness dwell;
20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, [I say], whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
While I don't think it lends much help in determining state of being human or not, I went through an in depth discussion regarding the veneration title, which IanS is discussing, in The Five Venerated Titles Attributed Upon Jesus and their Idiomatic Culture.
All Scholars have not agreed the Pauline letters predate the Gospels.
Again, Scholars have already deduced that ALL the so-called Pauline letters were forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul.
When will the obvious propaganda end?
Everytime it is claimed the Pauline letters predate the stories of Jesus NO EVIDENCE is presented--but always an appeal to authority.
If all Scholars agree the Pauline letters predate the Gospels then we would expect an ABUNDANCE of evidence to support the agreement.
It is the complete opposite--NO EVIDENCE has been presented.
The so-called agreement is a farce.
It is virtually impossible that the Pauline Corpus could have been composed before the stories of Jesus were known.
As soon as it realised the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple the history of the Church will collapse.
The Entire NT Canon is a compilation of writings fabricated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.
The rest of your post was as wrong as usual, but I'm wondering why you think this?
Shouldn't the Mormon church have collapsed when it was shown that Native Americans aren't the lost tribe of Israel?
Shouldn't the Jewish religion collapse now that we know that Moses didn't write the Torah?
etc etc...
Pauline authorship of Colossians is disputed, and I think the consensus is against its authenticity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Colossians
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/colossians.html
The Christology, in short, has an un-Pauline appearance.
Haven't belief in the Myth Gods of the Romans, Greek, and Egyptians collasped? etc etc
Religions do not collapse overnight.
It took about 200 years [2nd-4th century] before the Romans made Jesus their Lord and Savior, and God of God and discarded all the other Myths.
Pauline authorship for ALL the letters under the name of Paul have been disputed.
And, again, authenticity has no bearing on veracity.
If Paul actually lived and actually wrote Epistles to Churches that does NOT mean the Epistles are credible.
There is a massive difference between authenticity and veracity.
Plutarch wrote "Romulus" but Romulus is a Myth fable.
It has a total bearing on discussion of what Paul actually thought, dejudge. Hey, you're supposed to be a cogent poster. Well cogitate (there's a word for you) about this.
If I say, as an imaginary example: St Sigismund the Headbanger thought Jesus could turn lead into gold, because he says so in his treatise, A Refutation of All Reason. Then Jean Hardouin discovers that this treatise was fabricated by Severus Archontius and not written by Sigismund at all. Does that have a bearing on whether Jesus could really turn lead into gold? No. Does it have a bearing on what Sigismund's opinions in this matter were? Yes.
Now I was commenting on this:
It's Paul's opinion that is being discussed, that Jesus was "the firstborn of creation". But if Paul never in fact wrote that, then it wasn't his opinion at all, was it? That's relevant, isn't it?
I now take the opportunity to put my own view. In 1 Cor 15:20 (which is indeed authentic to Paul) it is stated that
See that here Jesus is not the "firstborn of creation" but the "first fruits of those who have fallen asleep". He is the first to be resurrected, and is a physical human being, so the rest of the faithful (physical human beings) may hope for resurrection too. The Colossians statement is so very different that it militates against Pauline authorship: as commentators point out, the Christology is unlike that of the undisputed Pauline epistles.
Authorship of all Paul's letters should be in question, not just Colossians. Because -
1. We don't have anything ever written by Paul.
2. The letters attributed to Paul are actually only known as Christian copies from about 200AD (and possibly much later).
3. Of 13 letters which afaik were claimed throughout most of history to be definitely written by Paul himself, about half are now thought to be fakes, and the remainder cannot be genuinely attributed to “Paul” anyway (afaik, the best anyone can say is that they appear to be from the same author).
But as I have often noted here - what bible scholars and HJ proponents here are placing such emphasis on, are just 3 words at the very end of what would have been an otherwise complete sentence anyway. So those words are in exactly the position of, and in the form of, a typical later addition.
Why should we be suspicious of those three words? OK, there are several very obvious reasons -
1. All the Christian NT writing that we have is non-original, none of it is known to us except through much later Christian copyists versions. We don’t know what Paul may have ever originally written.
2. All of that later devotional Christian copying, which is all that we have, is now universally agreed to have been open to alteration by later copyists.
3. In the specific case of Paul’s letters, fully around half of the letters are now thought to be entirely “faked” in the sense of being completely invented by other people.
4. Even the “genuine” letters of Paul cannot, presumably, be actually attributed to Paul at all. Because we have no original writing from Paul with which to compare & confirm the extant copyist examples. Afaik, the best that can be said is that 6 or 7 of the 13 letters appear to be in the same hand.
5. That is the one and only occasion where Paul appears to say that James was “the Lords brother”. Afaik, that remark is never again repeated anywhere in any of Paul’s letters. And nor is it repeated again in the epistles of the same “James”, where the writer “James” makes no such claim to have been the brother of “Jesus”, and in fact never claims even to have ever known or met Jesus in any sense except, like Paul and the rest, in spirit.
IOW - even before we get bogged down in ideas of arguing for years about huge long tracts of text on whether or not a supposed grammatical construction in Paul’s letter implies that James was a “Lords brother” whereas a few words earlier Peter was not designated in any particular way, before any such consideration at all, we have the inescapable fact that the letters in general, and the those three words in particular, are suspect anyway!
Craig B
You could say that 'Christ has been raised from the dead' contains a miniature argument for HJ, since it presupposes that Christ was alive. However, I suppose that a mythicist argument could state that a purely spiritual Christ could be crucified in the heavenly realm, and then raised from the (spiritually) dead. It's just that that second view seems quite bizarre to me, and also quite non-Jewish; but of course, you can argue that none of it is Jewish, and it is all a hoax.
You could say that 'Christ has been raised from the dead' contains a miniature argument for HJ, since it presupposes that Christ was alive. However, I suppose that a mythicist argument could state that a purely spiritual Christ could be crucified in the heavenly realm, and then raised from the (spiritually) dead. It's just that that second view seems quite bizarre to me, and also quite non-Jewish; but of course, you can argue that none of it is Jewish, and it is all a hoax.
Or all suspect, as simply "copies". Of what, one wonders?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
I reckon you've identified the reason so many of us are here discussing and reading about about the origin of Christianity.
Thanks for pointing out that singularity, IanS.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for bringing up that contribution of yours, JaysonR.
I thought I'd saved it properly, but it seems I'd done that in a pre-coffee state and I'm glad to have a second chance to have that post to hand.
David Mo
Philosopher
a) No. Why? b) Yes, I also know these claims and don’t seem convincing. Do you want to discuss them? I'll be glad to do so
Sorry, this is not a personal premise, but a grammatical rule: the rule of apposition or nominal explicative complement. (I translate from Spanish grammar. I don't know if this translation is correct. I think yes). The apposition behind a noun qualifies this noun.
But I don’t “reinterpret” nothing! I just apply the grammar rules as I learned them in Primary School.
I don’t understand what this have to do with our issue. What matters if Cephas were “entrusted” to preach to Jews? John and James are also. But neither Cephas nor other apostle was "brother of the Lord" in the sense of Galatians 1: 18-19, because "brother of the Lord" is a nominal explicative complement of James and only James.
***
I have answered your questions. I hope you will answer my very simple questions:
"I saw Peter, the other hunters and James, the shepherd’s son".
Who is the shepherd’s son?
"I saw Peter, the shepherd’s son, the other hunters and James."
Who is the shepherd’s son?
Thank you.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
We have struck down Plato and Aristotle with these criteria. Bravo!
What I don't understand is why you bother discussing other topics about Paul if all his writings are discarded with your draconian criteria.
Paul has been annihilated. There is no more to say. The forum is over.
Last edited:
Well it's true that I don't accept what bible scholars have claimed as their evidence of Jesus. And that's because when actually asked to state what their evidence is, they can do no better than say they believe certain things written in a manifestly unreliable bible composed of selected pieces of Christian devotional writing known only from much later copyist writing that is known to be subject to alteration.
And even after that, so-called "internal" evidence or not, still nowhere do any of those NT writers ever claim to have known Jesus. In all cases they merely say that it was believed that other people had met Jesus in the past, albeit none of those other people ever wrote to confirm any such knowledge of Jesus.
And that simply does not amount to a reliable evidential case for Jesus.
Last edited:
Well the evidential case for Jesus is "over". In fact it was over long before any of these current threads began.
Because what has been exposed in recent years by numerous sceptical critics, is that what was once claimed to be unassailable evidence of a Jesus figure who was "certain", turns out to be nothing of the kind.
In fact the "evidence", such as it is, turns out to be nothing more than selected examples of late devotional copyist biblical writing about peoples earlier religious beliefs in the supernatural.
It might one day turn out that somebody does uncover some reliable account of a human Jesus known to identifiable people whose story can be reasonably confirmed by external independent writing of the time. But so far that has never happened.
- Status