Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[proudfootz]

My point was that we never hear from James or the other "Pillars" anything resembling Paul's new Christology. All we hear is what's reflected in Paul's letters, and that is all stuff that Paul is opposed to. He doesn't waver in his opposition to the central teachings of the Zealots.

I apologize in advance if I am taking this bit out (from page 2) of context of a longer conversation on an unrelated point, but if it's possible could you be bothered to expand a little on this point?

Would Paul's Christology as you understand it be considered a 'High Christology' or a 'Low Christology'?

Thanks!

 

[Brainache]

I apologize in advance if I am taking this bit out (from page 2) of context of a longer conversation on an unrelated point, but if it's possible could you be bothered to expand a little on this point?

Would Paul's Christology as you understand it be considered a 'High Christology' or a 'Low Christology'?

Thanks!

I think I would call it "low Christology", because as far as I can tell Paul's "Christ Jesus" only became "Messiah" after death. Before that, the Jesus Paul talks about was born of a Jewish woman and was subject to the Laws of Moses. Paul's Jesus had a Brother who was in charge of the Jerusalem Church. So for Paul, Jesus was a man who became Divine through his death. Paul doesn't talk much about Jesus' earthly life, because he wants to push the idea that Jesus only became special after he died.

"High Christology" is what we see in the gospel of John, where Jesus was the Logos, present and divine since the beginning of the world. Born of a virgin and walking around talking like one of the Greek gods.

Mark is somewhere in between because he presents Jesus as becoming Divine at his Baptism by John The Baptist. The Jesus in Mark is not going around telling everyone he is God, he is telling everyone not to say that.

And from what we know of the Ebionite gospel, to them Jesus wasn't divine at all, just human Prophet, like Isaiah or Ezekiel, or like Muhammad is to to Islam.

But keep reading, I'm sure there will be more questions...

 

[proudfootz]

I think I would call it "low Christology", because as far as I can tell Paul's "Christ Jesus" only became "Messiah" after death. Before that, the Jesus Paul talks about was born of a Jewish woman and was subject to the Laws of Moses. Paul's Jesus had a Brother who was in charge of the Jerusalem Church. So for Paul, Jesus was a man who became Divine through his death. Paul doesn't talk much about Jesus' earthly life, because he wants to push the idea that Jesus only became special after he died.

"High Christology" is what we see in the gospel of John, where Jesus was the Logos, present and divine since the beginning of the world. Born of a virgin and walking around talking like one of the Greek gods.

Mark is somewhere in between because he presents Jesus as becoming Divine at his Baptism by John The Baptist. The Jesus in Mark is not going around telling everyone he is God, he is telling everyone not to say that.

And from what we know of the Ebionite gospel, to them Jesus wasn't divine at all, just human Prophet, like Isaiah or Ezekiel, or like Muhammad is to to Islam.

But keep reading, I'm sure there will be more questions...

Thanks for the information!

 

[proudfootz]

He never once cites other works of anthropology or archeology, and instead fills his pages insulting the reader, painting the academic community as devious conspirators, and endless self flattery and promotion.

Also, no; essene, ebionite, zealot, and sadducee are not alright to lump together as one thing; regardless if it just "makes sense" to him or not.

If this is a fair assessment of Eisenman I may have to move him down a bit on my 'must read' list.

 

[Brainache]

If this is a fair assessment of Eisenman I may have to move him down a bit on my 'must read' list.

I don't think it is. He does dismiss a lot of Apologetics for the self-serving nonsense it so often is, but I think he is right to do that.

Some of the stuff the early Qumran Scholars came out with was just bad Scholarship.

I think some people value politeness over honesty in Academic debates, Eisenman doesn't. It's part of his appeal for me.

 

[dejudge]

I think I would call it "low Christology", because as far as I can tell Paul's "Christ Jesus" only became "Messiah" after death. Before that, the Jesus Paul talks about was born of a Jewish woman and was subject to the Laws of Moses.

You completely ignored the very first part of Galatians 4.4.

The Pauline Jesus was God's Son made of a woman.

Galatians 4:4 KJV---But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

The Pauline Jesus is completely compatible with the teachings of the Jesus cult.

All Apologetic writers of antiquity who used the Pauline writings claim Jesus was the Son of God without a human father.

It makes no logical sense to assume that the Canonised Pauline Corpus is heretical and contrary to the teachings of the Church.

The very Pauline writings were used in ARGUMENTS AGAINST MARCION to argue that Jesus was GOD INCARNATE.

Please get familiar with "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian because you seem to have no idea that the Pauline Corpus was used to counter Marcion's claim that the Son of God was ONLY DIVINE.

A writer under the name of Tertullian used virtually the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus [except Philemon] to argue that Jesus was GOD Incarnate--Not a Phantom.

Paul's Jesus had a Brother who was in charge of the Jerusalem Church. So for Paul, Jesus was a man who became Divine through his death. Paul doesn't talk much about Jesus' earthly life, because he wants to push the idea that Jesus only became special after he died.

We have already been through this.

Apologetic writers who mentioned Galatians 1.19 admit that Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator and that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

Please, get familiar with Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19, the Papias fragments, Jerome's De Viris Illustribus, Eusebius' Church History, Rufinus' Preface to the Recognitions, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

Plus, the Pauline Jesus was a Spirit, the Last Adam.

We know exactly what Apologetics claimed about Jesus so it is really a waste of time to give the impression that the Pauline Jesus was only a human being.

You must have forgotten that there are writings called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus, and Prescription Against the Heretics attributed to Tertullian.

The Pauline Corpus is used in ALL those writings to argue that Jesus was GOD INCARNATE.

 

[proudfootz]

I don't think it is. He does dismiss a lot of Apologetics for the self-serving nonsense it so often is, but I think he is right to do that.

Some of the stuff the early Qumran Scholars came out with was just bad Scholarship.

I think some people value politeness over honesty in Academic debates, Eisenman doesn't. It's part of his appeal for me.

I'm glad you like his style.

You may catch me sometimes being less than polite in dismissing self-serving nonsense when I come across it.

 

[proudfootz]

You completely ignored the very first part of Galatians 4.4.

The Pauline Jesus was God's Son made of a woman.

Galatians 4:4 KJV---But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

The Pauline Jesus is completely compatible with the teachings of the Jesus cult.

All Apologetic writers of antiquity who used the Pauline writings claim Jesus was the Son of God without a human father.

It makes no logical sense to assume that the Canonised Pauline Corpus is heretical and contrary to the teachings of the Church.

The very Pauline writings were used in ARGUMENTS AGAINST MARCION to argue that Jesus was GOD INCARNATE.

Please get familiar with "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian because you seem to have no idea that the Pauline Corpus was used to counter Marcion's claim that the Son of God was ONLY DIVINE.

A writer under the name of Tertullian used virtually the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus [except Philemon] to argue that Jesus was GOD Incarnate--Not a Phantom.




We have already been through this.

Apologetic writers who mentioned Galatians 1.19 admit that Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator and that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

Please, get familiar with Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19, the Papias fragments, Jerome's De Viris Illustribus, Eusebius' Church History, Rufinus' Preface to the Recognitions, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

Plus, the Pauline Jesus was a Spirit, the Last Adam.

We know exactly what Apologetics claimed about Jesus so it is really a waste of time to give the impression that the Pauline Jesus was only a human being.

You must have forgotten that there are writings called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus, and Prescription Against the Heretics attributed to Tertullian.

The Pauline Corpus is used in ALL those writings to argue that Jesus was GOD INCARNATE.

Based on a quick google search, it would appear that you are in agreement with mainstream views vis a vis Paul's Christology being 'High'.

A foremost contribution to the Christology of the Apostolic Age is that of Paul. The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence and the identification of Christ as Kyrios.[4] The Pauline epistles use Kyrios to identify Jesus almost 230 times, and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord.[26] Paul viewed the superiority of the Christian revelation over all other divine manifestations as a consequence of the fact that Christ is the Son of God.[3]

The Pauline epistles also advanced the "cosmic Christology" later developed in the fourth gospel, elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God, as in 2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." Also, in Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."[4][16]

(from wikipedia entry on Christology)

But it's always good to see someone who doesn't feel bound to follow the academic consensus!

Let freedom ring!

 

[proudfootz]

For me, "Jesus", is more of an anthropological insight.
It shows how the Messianic movements were seen outside of Judah, and to some lesser extent within Judah.

It would not surprise me, however, if the individual never actually existed as that has happened countless times in Hebraic history, and receiving non-Hebrew cultures wouldn't really be capable of discerning the differences of one messianic tale from another - they would all seem to be easily about the same Hebrew guy.

The variant differences between different messianic sects within Judah requires understanding very pedantic levels of Hebrew law and value; something most cultures thought were very strange and backwoods to them.

Culturally speaking, there is enough social psychology to permit "Jesus" being a composite concept.

It's a bit hard to prove, either way, however - like so many things when dealing with the Hebrew history.

I find this observation very interesting.

Plus it has the virtue of conforming to my own view.

 

[Brainache]

Based on a quick google search, it would appear that you are in agreement with mainstream views vis a vis Paul's Christology being 'High'.



But it's always good to see someone who doesn't feel bound to follow the academic consensus!

Let freedom ring!

Only if you interpret the phrase "Son Of God" in the light of later greco-roman theological ideas.

In Judaism at the time, being a "Son Of God" didn't mean the same as it did to Pagans. Jews hearing that phrase would think of someone like King David or Solomon (ie: A human favoured by God), Pagans would think of Hercules (ie: a Supernatural being).

"Son Of God" was a title conferred on Religious teachers, not the later Hellenised Mystical BS that later Christians believed.

 

[proudfootz]

Only if you interpret the phrase "Son Of God" in the light of later greco-roman theological ideas.

In Judaism at the time, being a "Son Of God" didn't mean the same as it did to Pagans. Jews hearing that phrase would think of someone like King David or Solomon (ie: A human favoured by God), Pagans would think of Hercules (ie: a Supernatural being).

"Son Of God" was a title conferred on Religious teachers, not the later Hellenised Mystical BS that later Christians believed.

So far I'm only parroting what the consensus view would seem to be, if we take wikipedia to be indicative.

Thanks!

 

[Brainache]

So far I'm only parroting what the consensus view would seem to be, if we take wikipedia to be indicative.

Thanks!

I think most Historians would be aware of this.

The bible has lots of "Sons Of God" in the old testament, this isn't anything new.

It's the Apologists who think the title has some special significance when applied to Jesus.

Apologetics is not the same as Historical research.

 

[dejudge]

Only if you interpret the phrase "Son Of God" in the light of later greco-roman theological ideas.

In Judaism at the time, being a "Son Of God" didn't mean the same as it did to Pagans. Jews hearing that phrase would think of someone like King David or Solomon (ie: A human favoured by God), Pagans would think of Hercules (ie: a Supernatural being).

"Son Of God" was a title conferred on Religious teachers, not the later Hellenised Mystical BS that later Christians believed.

So Jesus of Nazareth was a King like David or Solomon and NOT an obscure preacher.

Now who was the father of the King from Nazareth according to Paul?

Please get familiar with the Pauline Corpus and Apologetic writings.

You don't know or have completely forgotten that we have Commentaries of the Pauline Corpus.

1. See John Chrysostom's Commentary on the Pauline Corpus.

2. See writings attributed to Tertullian.

3. See writings attributed to Irenaeus.

4. See writings attributed to Origen.

5. See writings attributed to Eusebius.

6. See writings attributed to Augustine of Hippo.

7. See writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

8. See writings attributed to Lactantius.

9. See writings attributed to Jerome.

10. See writings attributed to Hippolytus.

The Pauline Jesus was GOD INCARNATE.

 

[Brainache]

So Jesus of Nazareth was a King like David or Solomon and NOT an obscure preacher.

Now who was the father of the King from Nazareth according to Paul?

Please get familiar with the Pauline Corpus and Apologetic writings.

You don't know or have completely forgotten that we have Commentaries of the Pauline Corpus.

1. See John Chrysostom's Commentary on the Pauline Corpus.

2. See writings attributed to Tertullian.

3. See writings attributed to Irenaeus.

4. See writings attributed to Origen.

5. See writings attributed to Eusebius.

6. See writings attributed to Augustine of Hippo.

7. See writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

8. See writings attributed to Lactantius.

9. See writings attributed to Jerome.

10. See writings attributed to Hippolytus.

The Pauline Jesus was GOD INCARNATE.

God doesn't exist dejudge and there are already two other threads if you want to rave about Hoax Paul fake Jesus whatever.

It is off-topic in here.

 

[proudfootz]

If Paul is the topic of the thread, it would seem opinions about who or what Paul might have been are on topic.

 

[Brainache]

If Paul is the topic of the thread, it would seem opinions about who or what Paul might have been are on topic.

It is assumed for the purpose of discussion in this thread that Paul existed and that he wrote the letters ascribed to him.

Someone coming in disrupting the conversation with idiotic claims that "It was all faked in the 2nd century" are useless for this discussion.

He is the only person in the world who thinks Paul and everything else was invented by Hoaxers in the 2nd to 4th centuries. It makes no sense and is totally counter-productive for the subject under discussion.

The subject of the thread is "Paul The Herodian", not "Did Paul Exist?". If he wants to discuss that, he can start his own thread full of Scholarly opinions...

 

[dejudge]

God doesn't exist dejudge and there are already two other threads if you want to rave about Hoax Paul fake Jesus whatever.

It is off-topic in here.

Your statement is of little value.

I responded to your post where you claimed----"In Judaism at the time, being a "Son Of God" didn't mean the same as it did to Pagans. Jews hearing that phrase would think of someone like King David or Solomon (ie: A human favoured by God), Pagans would think of Hercules (ie: a Supernatural being)".

Your claim is fundamentally false.

Examine the book of Job.

Job 1:6 KJV---Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

The Son of God in the Pauline Corpus refers to a Spiritual character--God Incarnate.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is of little value.

I responded to your post where you claimed----"In Judaism at the time, being a "Son Of God" didn't mean the same as it did to Pagans. Jews hearing that phrase would think of someone like King David or Solomon (ie: A human favoured by God), Pagans would think of Hercules (ie: a Supernatural being)".

Your claim is fundamentally false.

Examine the book of Job.

Job 1:6 KJV---Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

The Son of God in the Pauline Corpus refers to a Spiritual character--God Incarnate.

This is off-topic dejudge. If you want to debate the HJ, do it in one of the other two threads currently active on that topic and stop trying to derail this one.

Thanks.

 

[dejudge]

This is off-topic dejudge. If you want to debate the HJ, do it in one of the other two threads currently active on that topic and stop trying to derail this one.

Thanks.

How in the world can it be off topic when I am directly responding to your post?

Did you not state the following?

"In Judaism at the time, being a "Son Of God" didn't mean the same as it did to Pagans. Jews hearing that phrase would think of someone like King David or Solomon (ie: A human favoured by God), Pagans would think of Hercules (ie: a Supernatural being)".

Your statement is fundamentally false.

In the Pauline Corpus, the Son of God REFERS to Jesus Christ, the Last Adam--a Spirit.

Examine the Pauline Corpus.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV---And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[Brainache]

How in the world can it be off topic when I am directly responding to your post?

Did you not state the following?

Your statement is fundamentally false.

In the Pauline Corpus, the Son of God REFERS to Jesus Christ, the Last Adam--a Spirit.

Examine the Pauline Corpus.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV---And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

So what? Now you believe in ghosts?

He talks about Jesus being born of a woman, being subject to law, having a brother, teaching about divorce, eating bread and drinking wine amongst other things.

Your argument makes no sense when you consider what else he says about Jesus.

Classic cherry picking.