Philo's Jesus?

[Davros of Skaro]

As would this:

Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV)

" ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind .’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments .”

Jesus also mentions the one thing that not even his magic Blood cannot scrub clean.

Mark 3:28-29 (KJV)

28 Verily I say unto you , All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme : 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

[+Link of Hyrule]

Jesus also mentions the one thing that not even his magic Blood cannot scrub clean.

Mark 3:28-29 (KJV)

28 Verily I say unto you , All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme : 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable

[Davros of Skaro]

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable

The Holy Spirit is the conduit for God's eternal beyond the Universe love.Go against that and you are just the walking dead.

[Rafterman]

Many 21st century texts have Jesus' words in red too.

Perhaps, but we know the KJV is legit because it was written by Jesus' brother.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Perhaps, but we know the KJV is legit because it was written by Jesus' brother.

Come again? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

Edit: Geez, I'm slow on the uptake tonight, I only just got the joke. So basically you have no real reason for saying you prefer the 17th Century Jesus except to try and rile folk up. Gotcha

Edited August 21, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Doug1029]

Paul does not make a distinction from a biological brother or a brother baptized in Christ.Look up the Greek texts and see that he usees the word "adelphos" (brother) which he calls everyone that's "in the word" of Christ.Christians are a family under God and are related in spirit.

Thanks for the tip. I still think Paul will be the key. Demonstrate that Paul was real and you go a long way toward demonstrating that Jesus was, too. But if you can't find pretty good evidence for Paul, then the whole Jesus story starts to unravel.

Doug

[eight bits]

davros

Paul makes no reference to scripture in 1 Thes 2:14-16 which he does when he qoutes scripture.

Sometimes Paul does, sometimes he doesn't. For example, at 2 Coritnhians 13:1, Paul writes

At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

That's alluding to Deuteronomy 19:15, but Paul says nothing about it being from scripture.

Paul talks about a revealed being that never had an Earthly ministry.

That's the point in contention. I already underrstand that that's your opinion about Paul and Jesus. Repeating your opinion over and over is not an argument, and repeating your opinion doesn't make any of the copious evidence contrary to your opinion go away,

[Rafterman]

Come again? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

Edit: Geez, I'm slow on the uptake tonight, I only just got the joke. So basically you have no real reason for saying you prefer the 17th Century Jesus except to try and rile folk up. Gotcha

Just having a little sarcastic fun.

But, sadly, a good number of fundies believe exactly some of the stuff I said above.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Just having a little sarcastic fun.

But, sadly, a good number of fundies believe exactly some of the stuff I said above.

Really? That Jesus spoke in red letters? That King James was literally Jesus' brother? As noted, you're being funny, I got that. I don't know anyone who claims that King James was the brother of Jesus. I think we just roll in different circles

[humesapprentice]

I think there is better evidence for a pre-Christian Jesus in Philo than even Carrier has noticed.

Philo says Hosea attained the name of Jesus (Joshua) in ‘On the Change of Names’ chapter 21:

Moses also changes the name of Hosea into that of Joshua; displaying by his new name the distinctive qualities of his character; for the name Hosea is interpreted, "what sort of a person is this?" but Joshua means "the salvation of the Lord," being the name of the most excellent possible character.

Notice the parallels here with the text of Philippians 2:7-9 . In Philippians 2, Christ “made himself of no reputation” (verse 7) and later receives “the name that is above every name” (verse 9); Philo’s character is originally of no reputation (his name means “what sort of person is this?”) and later received the most excellent name, the name of Jesus (Joshua).

Also notice the context. Philo later comments:

But it happens to the arch-prophet to have many names: for when he interprets and explains the oracles which are delivered by God, he is called Moses; and when he prays for and blesses the people, he is called the man of God; and when Egypt is paying the penalty of its impious actions, he is then denominated the god of him who is the king of the country, namely, of Pharaoh.

(Chapter 22, On the Change of Names).

Who is the 'Archprophet'? The Archprophet has many names, just as Philo says that the Logos does (Chapter 28, On the Confusion of Tongues). Moreover, though, the arch-prophet cannot be identified with any one particular flesh-and-blood man, as he is identified both as Moses and Pharaoh. The arch-prophet must therefore be transcendent, as only the Logos is.

Right after Philo explains that Hosea was given the name Jesus, he speaks about Caleb's transformation of the heart, and how Caleb had "'a new spirit within him,' as if the dominant part in him had been changed into complete perfection." The man of complete perfection: the logos. Therefore, Philo was speaking about Hosea and Caleb emulating the logos. If Hosea's change of name coincides with his becoming more like the logos, it is very probable that 'Jesus' was one of Logos' many names.

[Davros of Skaro]

Thanks for the tip. I still think Paul will be the key. Demonstrate that Paul was real and you go a long way toward demonstrating that Jesus was, too. But if you can't find pretty good evidence for Paul, then the whole Jesus story starts to unravel.

Doug

Paul existing and the time period ascribed to him is no problem.Looking deep into what Paul is talking about is the key.

[Davros of Skaro]

davros

Sometimes Paul does, sometimes he doesn't. For example, at 2 Coritnhians 13:1, Paul writes

That's alluding to Deuteronomy 19:15, but Paul says nothing about it being from scripture.

That's the point in contention. I already underrstand that that'sr your opinion about Paul and Jesus. Repeating your opinion over and over is not an argument, and repeating your opinion doesn't make any of the copious evidence contrary to your opinion go away,

The thing is I do not own a scholars Bible which costs over a grand (if I remember right).It lays out the most original translations and the later ones.

My point is by using the "New King James Version" as an illustration.Known references to OT scripture by Paul is in qoutation marks.

In 2 Corinthians 13:1 Paul is qouting Jewish law laid out in Deuteronomy which should be known by the Church.It's in qoutation marks.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 there's no qoutation marks.

2 Corinthians 13:1 (NKJV)

1 This will be the third time I am coming to you. "By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."

http://m.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/2-corinthians/13-1.html

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (NKJV)

14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

http://m.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/1-thessalonians/passage.aspx?q=1-thessalonians+2:14-16

Do you doubt that the letters of Paul are entirely untouched and interpolation free?If so then check out the most blatant interpolation that screams like a stabbed Pig.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak ; but they are commanded to be under obedience , as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 11:5 (KJV)

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven .

I am repeating over and over again till puke wells up from people's keyboards.I want Atheists stop going on forums saying "Jesus was just a preacher, even Josephus mentions him."I want them to take some time aside and say "Josephus mentions someone else, the other part is an obvious interpolation and I do not know wether Jesus existed or not."This based on looking beyond the fallacious arguments for historicity.

[Davros of Skaro]

I think there is better evidence for a pre-Christian Jesus in Philo than even Carrier has noticed.

Philo says Hosea attained the name of Jesus (Joshua) in ‘On the Change of Names’ chapter 21:

Moses also changes the name of Hosea into that of Joshua; displaying by his new name the distinctive qualities of his character; for the name Hosea is interpreted, "what sort of a person is this?" but Joshua means "the salvation of the Lord," being the name of the most excellent possible character.

Notice the parallels here with the text of Philippians 2:7-9 . In Philippians 2, Christ “made himself of no reputation” (verse 7) and later receives “the name that is above every name” (verse 9); Philo’s character is originally of no reputation (his name means “what sort of person is this?”) and later received the most excellent name, the name of Jesus (Joshua).

Also notice the context. Philo later comments:

But it happens to the arch-prophet to have many names: for when he interprets and explains the oracles which are delivered by God, he is called Moses; and when he prays for and blesses the people, he is called the man of God; and when Egypt is paying the penalty of its impious actions, he is then denominated the god of him who is the king of the country, namely, of Pharaoh.

(Chapter 22, On the Change of Names).

Who is the 'Archprophet'? The Archprophet has many names, just as Philo says that the Logos does (Chapter 28, On the Confusion of Tongues). Moreover, though, the arch-prophet cannot be identified with any one particular flesh-and-blood man, as he is identified both as Moses and Pharaoh. The arch-prophet must therefore be transcendent, as only the Logos is.

Right after Philo explains that Hosea was given the name Jesus, he speaks about Caleb's transformation of the heart, and how Caleb had "'a new spirit within him,' as if the dominant part in him had been changed into complete perfection." The man of complete perfection: the logos. Therefore, Philo was speaking about Hosea and Caleb emulating the logos. If Hosea's change of name coincides with his becoming more like the logos, it is very probable that 'Jesus' was one of Logos' many names.

I do not know? I have to chew over that.

Here's an example of Philo talking about the Logos or "The Word".

(62) Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (#Ge 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defence of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book42.html

[eight bits]

davros

The thing is I do not own a scholars Bible which costs over a grand (if I remember right).It lays out the most original translations and the later ones.

A good study bible can be aaccessed for free online. A free trot, with crosslinked concordance, is available at

http://biblehub.com/...r/matthew/1.htm

Free resources will suffice for anything that comes up regularly in webly counterapologetics. The expensive comprehensive reference works are for other purposes.

My point is by using the "New King James Version" as an illustration.Known references to OT scripture by Paul is in qoutation marks.

That bit of punctuation was unavailable to Paul. Like other authors of his time, Paul freely intermixed direct quotations, paraphrases, and allusions. The 1 Thessalonians rant is mostly allusion, there was nothing in 2 Chronicles about Jesus or churches in Judea, but Paul has worked those into a single fluent piece of Greek prose.

Recall further that the (N)KJV translator has made a choice: to resolve the "ambiguity" (those are scare quotes, not direct quotation quotes... there is very little ambiguity to resolve) of Paul's verb placement as not intending quotation or paraphrase (i.e. Paul meant to say killing the prophets rather than to repeat his source's persecuting them). Once (N)KJV had made that choice, there was little to place in quotes, if you follow English conventions in the matter. As I mentioned earlier, the choice appears to reflect a desrie to "harmonize" Matthew and Paul, rather than a scholarly assessment of Paul's syntax and grammar.

Do you doubt that the letters of Paul are entirely untouched and interpolation free?

Of course the corpus of letters is touched - we would have nothing of Paul to read but for many touchings. The matter under discussion is whether this passage is so different from the rest of the accepted Pauline letters as to be especially suspicious. What emerges is that the translation is suspicious, but the underlying text isn't especially so. I cannot be certain that Paul said that Jesus' killers were Jewish, but I can form an opinion based on this evidence.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Yes, Paul obviously disapproves, since he mocks the idea . My guess is that he is quoting or paraphrasing here from the letter he is answering. This is not the only place where having both sides of the correspondence would be a big help. But we don't.

I want Atheists stop going on forums ...

What has atheism to do with whether there was a hisorical Jesus? And I didn't catch how Josephus worked his way into our discussion.

Anyway, I don't know whether Jesus existed or not, either. I think it is comfortably, but not overwhelmingly, more likely than not that he did. Jospehus has no effect whatsoever on my estimate of that.

Edited August 21, 2014 by eight bits

[Davros of Skaro]

davros

A good study bible can be aaccessed for free online. A free trot, with crosslinked concordance, is available at

http://biblehub.com/...r/matthew/1.htm

Free resources will suffice for anything that comes up regularly in webly counterapologetics. The expensive comprehensive reference works are for other purposes.

That bit of punctuation was unavailable to Paul. Like other authors of his time, Paul freely intermixed direct quotations, paraphrases, and allusions. The 1 Thessalonians rant is mostly allusion, there was nothing in 2 Chronicles about Jesus or churches in Judea, but Paul has worked those into a single fluent piece of Greek prose.

Recall further that the (N)KJV translator has made a choice: to resolve the "ambiguity" (those are scare quotes, not direct quotation quotes... there is very little ambiguity to resolve) of Paul's verb placement as not intending quotation or paraphrase (i.e. Paul meant to say killing the prophets rather than to repeat his source's persecuting them). Once (N)KJV had made that choice, there was little to place in quotes, if you follow English conventions in the matter. As I mentioned earlier, the choice appears to reflect a desrie to "harmonize" Matthew and Paul, rather than a scholarly assessment of Paul's syntax and grammar.

Of course the corpus of letters is touched - we would have nothing of Paul to read but for many touchings. The matter under discussion is whether this passage is so different from the rest of the accepted Pauline letters as to be especially suspicious. What emerges is that the translation is suspicious, but the underlying text isn't especially so. I cannot be certain that Paul said that Jesus' killers were Jewish, but I can form an opinion based on this evidence.

Yes, Paul obviously disapproves, since he mocks the idea . My guess is that he is quoting or paraphrasing here from the letter he is answering. This is not the only place where having both sides of the correspondence would be a big help. But we don't.

What has atheism to do with whether there was a hisorical Jesus? And I didn't catch how Josephus worked his way into our discussion.

Anyway, I don't know whether Jesus existed or not, either. I think it is comfortably, but not overwhelmingly, more likely than not that he did. Jospehus has no effect whatsoever on my estimate of that.

I used to use Biblehub till they changed things up recently.

There's a reason the scholar's Bible I mentioned is expensive but nevermind.

So two glaring interpolations and you see nothing.

Nice!

[eight bits]

davros

So two glaring interpolations and you see nothing.

Again, you simply repeat the point in contention. Repeating your opinion over and over again does not make it so, and does not make the contrary evidence go away.

Also, I did ask you a question, davros. What has atheism to do with whether there was a historical Jesus? I'd appreciate an answer, if you please.

[Davros of Skaro]

davros

Again, you simply repeat the point in contention. Repeating your opinion over and over again does not make it so, and does not make the contrary evidence go away.

Also, I did ask you a question, davros. What has atheism to do with whether there was a historical Jesus? I'd appreciate an answer, if you please.

People can check out the link you refer as "flim flam" which shows your mentality.

I wash my hands of you.

[eight bits]

davros

People can check out the link you refer as "flim flam" which shows your mentality

I hope they do.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html

Over the years, I have seen only one thing that Carrier did well, and that was to spot a Christian retelling of a pagan "miracle story" (a magically-summoned thunderstorm which relieved a surrounded legion of Marcus Aurelius') as if Christians had done it. Bravo.

Carrier was able to do a good job there, IMO, because there was plenty of non-textual evidence, a few crucial bits of simple prosaic text, and the question falls squarely within his expertise (he earned a doctorate in ancient history from Columbia). He is also an energetic writer, with a good sense of what his niche audience wants to hear. On this occasion, what they want to hear was true.

Carrier is conspicuously weak when he interprets texts of moderate complexity. For example, he teaches that Epiphanius wrote about a cult who worshipped a "Jesus" who had died in the First Century BCE under Alexander Jannaeus (the last Daviidic king). In fact, Epiphanius is digressing to explain how Jesus, born under the non-Jewish Herod the Great, manages to serve as AJ's successor as king and high priest, offices which weren't in Davidic hands during Jesus' lifetime and which no longer exist in Epiphanius'. Epiphanius' argument is BS, but he does clearly state what his argument is about.

I am unsure whether this sort of lapse is because Carrier simply can't comprehend the more challenging among the texts he discusses, or because he fails to consider the strongest alternate hypotheses besides whatever he happens to be pitching. If so, then whatever he reads, he'd understand it as backing his views. Non-atheists doing that is often called "confirmation bias."

If that's the problem, then maybe his recent discovery of Bayesianism will help, since the fundamental step in a Bayesian analysis is to build the hypothesis set of all serious possibilities - or else to acknowledge that the analysis pertains only to some handpicked subset of those hypotheses on the assumption that one of the chosen is actually true.

In any case, it was the contents of your link that I described as flim-flamming, because that's what's there. While discussing the 1 Thessalonians passage, Carrier says nothing about 2 Chronicles. Regardless, it is simply not the case that Paul disses Jews in general, but only the Jews he holds responsible for the misdeeds, a group which he has some justification to criticize, since he had been one of them, to his regret.

Regardless of "confirmation bias," Carrier makes a case, rather than considers all the serious possibilities. So, the reader must look elsewhere for the other side of the story. That's fine, but when partisan advocacy is mislabeled as scholarship, the result is fairly called flim-flam.

I wash my hands of you.

In other words, you dodge the direct question I put to you, what has atheism to do with whether there was a historical Jesus?

[Davros of Skaro]

Philo looks to be talking of a Trinity like concept?

IX. (27) I have also, on one occasion, heard a more ingenious train of reasoning from my own soul, which was accustomed frequently to be seized with a certain divine inspiration, even concerning matters which it could not explain even to itself; which now, if I am able to remember it accurately, I will relate. It told me that in the one living and true God there were two supreme and primary powers--goodness and authority; and that by his goodness he had created every thing, and by his authority he governed all that he had created; (28) and that the third thing which was between the two, and had the effect of bringing them together was reason, for that it was owing to reason that God was both a ruler and good. Now, of this ruling authority and of this goodness, being two distinct powers, the cherubim were the symbols, but of reason the flaming sword was the symbol. For reason is a thing capable of rapid motion and impetuous, and especially the reason of the Creator of all things is so, inasmuch as it was before everything and passed by everything, and was conceived before everything, and appears in everything. 

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book5.html

XXXIV. (165) And he apportioned cold and heat, and summer and spring, the different seasons of the year, divided by the same dividing Word. And the three days which passed before the creation of the sun, are equal in number to the three days of the first week which came after the creation of the sun, the number six being dissected equally in order to display the character of eternity and of time. For thus God allotted three days to eternity before the appearance of the sun, and those which came after the sun he allotted to time; the sun being an imitation of eternity, and time and eternity being the two primary powers of the living God; (166) the one his beneficent power, in accordance with which he made the world, and in respect of which he is called God; the other his chastening power, according to which he rules and governs what he has created, in respect of which he is further denominated Lord, and these two he here states to be divided in the middle by him standing above them both. "For," says he, "I will speak to you from above the mercy-seat, in the midst, between the two Cherubims;"{55}{#ex 25:22.} that he might show that the most ancient powers of the living God are equal; that is to say, his beneficent and his chastising power, being both divided by the same dividing Word.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book17.html

XXV. (124) There are three different classes of human dispositions, each of which has received as its portion one of the aforesaid visions. The best of them has received that vision which is in the centre, the sight of the truly living God. The one which is next best has received that which is on the right hand, the sight of the beneficent power which has the name of God. And the third has the sight of that which is on the left hand, the governing power, which is called lord. 

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book22.html

Is Man made in the image of God's firstborn?

(62) Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (#Ge 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defence of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book42.html

The ambassador of God.

(205) And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. (206) And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, "And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;"{69}{#nu 16:48.} neither being uncreate as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work. For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book17.html

The intercessor to complete the wardrobe of the High Priest?

(134) For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings; (135) perhaps, also, he is thus giving a previous warning to the servant of God, even if he is unable to make himself worthy of the Creator, of the world, at least to labour incessantly to make himself worthy of the world itself; the image of which he is clothed in, in a manner that binds him from the time that he puts it on, to bear about the pattern of it in his mind, so that he shall be in a manner changed from the nature of a man into the nature of the world, and, if one may say so (and one may by all means and at all times speak the plain truth in sincerity), become a little world himself.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book25.html

God and his eldest Archangel are one.

(1.239) for as those who are not able to look upon the sun itself, look upon the reflected rays of the sun as the sun itself, and upon the halo around the moon as if it were the moon itself; so also do those who are unable to bear the sight of God, look upon his image, his angel word, as himself.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book21.html

The master of the feast is "The Word".

(2.249) And who can pour over the happy soul which proffers its own reason as the most sacred cup, the holy goblets of true joy, except the cup-bearer of God, the master of the feast, the word? not differing from the draught itself, but being itself in an unmixed state, the pure delight and sweetness, and pouring forth, and joy, and ambrosial medicine of pleasure and happiness; if we too may, for a moment, employ the language of the poets.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book21.html

[Dash--]

Paul talks about a revealed being that never had an Earthly ministry.

Paul talks about a Jewish man (descendant of Abraham,David,Jesse),born of a woman, crucified in Zion.

Sounds "earthly" to me.

[eight bits]

Dash-

Paul talks about a Jewish man (descendant of Abraham,David,Jesse),born of a woman, crucified in Zion.

Sounds "earthly" to me.

It's easy to see why it is so urgent for Christ-mythers to excise 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-16. If Jesus' killers were Jewish, then Jesus was killed by human beings, and so Jesus must once have been a person, rather than an angel or other celestial being.

Your list would suffice to establish that Paul is talking about a human being, but there is more. Paul is concerned that Jesus' corpse was gibbeted... which means Paul believes that Jesus had a corpse. That corpse, Paul says, was buried. Again, this is something something that requires a physical body and an earthly location. Paul appears to talk about living people who knew Jesus in an earthly way in the past (2 Coritnthinas 5: 16, and maybe Galatians 2: 6).

It is one thing to say that Paul is misinformed or misinforming, or that all the letters are fabrications, the way that three very confidently are fabrications. Those things are possible, but throwing away Paul leaves the Christ-myther with no evidence at all about how anybody in the movement thought about Jesus before the Gospels, which depict a man who walked the Earth.

Regardless, the idea that there is some huge mystery surrounding what Paul's letters are talking about is hokum. Paul's Jesus is a tzedek, a human being beloved of God. God rewards Jesus after death with the human office of Messiah and makes him the first to enjoy what eventually all righteous people will enjoy, everlasting life in an indestructible pneuma-body.

What the Christ-mythers would like is for Paul not to be thrown away, but to be cleansed of passages that bluntly describe an earthly Jesus. What would be left are descriptions of a celestial being - Jesus after he was raised from the dead. Well, not quite. There would still be the passages about how ordinary earthly people, Paul and his readers, will someday attain the identical "celestial" status as Jesus has attained. Well, not attained, exactly ...

It will be tricky, but something will be worked out to explain how, if Jesus is now what every righteous terrestial human will soon be, then somehow Jesus being that way excludes his having been a terrestial human being before he died. Well, not died, exactly....

Uncleansed, however, Paul's Jesus did die, exactly, and did attain, exactly, his present status which is altogether different from what he was before. Before, his dead corpse was publicly exhibited on a wooden stake or cross, and then buried. After, there was something "celestial" about Jesus. Only then was there anything "celestial" about Jesus, according to Paul.

And I still wonder what any of this has to do with atheism. Julius Caesar claimed descent from the goddess Venus, through the legendary hero Aeneas. Some survivors of Julius agreed with those claims, and worshipped Julius as the celestial being he became after he died. Atheists, so far as I can tell, just like everybody else, have no problem understanding that claimed divinity has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a particular person actually lived.

[Doug1029]

It's easy to see why it is so urgent for Christ-mythers to excise 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-16. If Jesus' killers were Jewish, then Jesus was killed by human beings, and so Jesus must once have been a person, rather than an angel or other celestial being.

Your list would suffice to establish that Paul is talking about a human being, but there is more. Paul is concerned that Jesus' corpse was gibbeted... which means Paul believes that Jesus had a corpse. That corpse, Paul says, was buried. Again, this is something something that requires a physical body and an earthly location. Paul appears to talk about living people who knew Jesus in an earthly way in the past (2 Coritnthinas 5: 16, and maybe Galatians 2: 6).

It is one thing to say that Paul is misinformed or misinforming, or that all the letters are fabrications, the way that three very confidently are fabrications. Those things are possible, but throwing away Paul leaves the Christ-myther with no evidence at all about how anybody in the movement thought about Jesus before the Gospels, which depict a man who walked the Earth.

In keeping with your statements: there is a progression in the gospels and apocryphal writings. The older ones depict Jesus as a man. As one moves forward in time, he is gradually given divine attributes. Thus, Jesus' divinity is an add-on to the original version.

Though I have only pushed the writing of Paul's letters back to 117 AD, I believe they date from much earlier. But who, exactly, was Paul? And was Paul "historical?"

Doug

Edited August 26, 2014 by Doug1029

[eight bits]

Doug

In keeping with your statements: there is a progression in the gospels and apocryphal writings. The older ones depict Jesus as a man. As one moves forward in time, he is gradually given divine attributes. Thus, Jesus' divinity is an add-on to the original version.

Yes, I think the progression is unmistakable. Mark's Jesus is still working out whether or not he's the Messiah; while John's Jesus creates the Universe, and then saves all of mankind as an encore. Then, a while later, the Nicene Creed makes John look wishy-washy about Jesus' divinity.

But who, exactly, was Paul? And was Paul "historical?"

I am about 80-20 favoring a historical Paul, active in the mid First Century. I base that mainly on the seven confident letters. Unfortunately, there is nothing else until Acts, which doesn't square with the letters all that well. 1 Clement also helps a bit with historicity, IMO, since it seems to assume a continuing Founder-Paul tradition at Corinth, but that letter itself is not without its problems.

If Paul was real, it's hard to say much about who he was, since there is so little to go on. Business correspondence is what we have, and that's not the most personally revealing genre. He had a good opinion of himself, though .

[Doug1029]

Doug

Yes, I think the progression is unmistakable. Mark's Jesus is still working out whether or not he's the Messiah; while John's Jesus creates the Universe, and then saves all of mankind as an encore. Then, a while later, the Nicene Creed makes John look wishy-washy about Jesus' divinity.

I am about 80-20 favoring a historical Paul, active in the mid First Century. I base that mainly on the seven confident letters. Unfortunately, there is nothing else until Acts, which doesn't square with the letters all that well. 1 Clement also helps a bit with historicity, IMO, since it seems to assume a continuing Founder-Paul tradition at Corinth, but that letter itself is not without its problems.

If Paul was real, it's hard to say much about who he was, since there is so little to go on. Business correspondence is what we have, and that's not the most personally revealing genre. He had a good opinion of himself, though .

I suspect that the biblical Paul is a story based on some real-life person. But I'm still trying to figure out who that real-life person actually was. Some epistles seem to suggest a person named Apollos with very similar attributes.

Look out for 1Clement. It contains a reference to "Blessed Judith." When was the Book of Judith written?

Doug

[Davros of Skaro]

Paul talks about a Jewish man (descendant of Abraham,David,Jesse),born of a woman, crucified in Zion.

Sounds "earthly" to me.

Paul does not speak of Mary (as far as I know) which the later Gospels say is Jesus's mother.

Looking at the Greek in Galatians 4:4 the "born of a woman" or "made of a woman" translates to "To having had became out of a woman".

Galatians 4:4 (KJV)

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

http://m.biblestudytools.com/kjv/galatians/4-4.html

http://qbible.com/greek-new-testament/galatians/4.html

In Galatians 4:26 Paul says that Jerusalem is a Mother after talking about Abraham's wife and his slave that bore him sons.

Galatians 4:26 (KJV)

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Paul talks about Jesus being made in the likeness of man as if he was a preformed adult just like Adam was.

Philippians 2:7-8 (KJV)

7 But made himself of no reputation , and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Just like Adam being made of mud being of Earth, so is Heavenly things made of Heaven being of Heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:47-48 (KJV)

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord (some texts leave out "Lord") from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

So being "To having had became out of a woman" was the need to cover the first Sin of Eve.The Sin that cast Man out of the Garden which requires Man to be under the Law with the promise of a new Kingdom to Abraham.

In Romans 1:3 the original Greek translates to"Of having had become out of a seed of a David".

Romans 1:3 (KJV)

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

http://m.biblestudytools.com/kjv/romans/1-3.html

http://qbible.com/greek-new-testament/romans/1.html

The next three examples Paul talks about how faith in Christ brings everyone under the same Seed in a spiritual metaphor.

Romans 4:16 (KJV)

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Romans 9:6-8 (KJV)

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect . For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called . 8 That is , They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Galatians 3:28-29 (KJV)

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul talks about different kinds of flesh and bodies of which he believes in a spiritual flesh.

1 Corinthians 15:39-40 (KJV)

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men , another flesh of beasts , another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

1 Corinthians 15:44 (KJV)

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Jesus is a revealed being from the pages of the Old Testament.It's just that the Old Testament was just for Jews which was propaganda literature to keep people in line.The Jews thought that all nations would answer to them.

Leviticus 19:18 (KJV)

18 Thou shalt not avenge , nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Dr. Robert Sapolsky's lecture about Biological Underpinnings of Religiosity

Edited August 27, 2014 by davros of skaro