Jews and the story book jesus

[robertb]

Do you think Paul believed that there was an historical Jesus who had been crucified?

Not necessarily in the sense of what we would mean by that statement. He could have believed it simply because he believed that the scriptures told him that it was so.

[Composer]

You said:

It is not a 'fact' that Paul is a fictional story book character. He might well have been, but unless you actually have conclusive evidence that he was, you probably should not use the word 'fact' in this instance.

You can apply this same argument to the first three assertions you made.

With regards to your fourth statement, I would agree that it is a fact that no "legitimate evidence" has been presented, but this 'fact' rests upon one's understanding of what , specifically, constitutes 'legitimate evidence', which makes the proposition relative, kind of by definition.

The Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines a ' fact ' as -

fact n. 1 thing that is known to exist or to be true. 2 (usu. in pl.) item of verified information. 3 truth, reality. 4 thing assumed as the basis for argument.  before (or after) the fact before (or after) the committing of a crime. in (or in point of) fact 1 in reality. 2 in short. [Latin factum from facio do]
So for your further education I shall ammend my earlier statement of facts -

Originally posted by Composer
Fact / in short: bible Paul is a fictional story book character

Fact / in short: bible jesus is another fictional story book character

Fact / in short: Whatever story book fictional character Paul says about fictional story book jesus is solely dependent on the men that wrote the man made story book bible.

Fact / in short: The legitimate evidence that the words of any alleged holy book is the words of a god given to men remains a constant zero!

Better luck next time!

[robrecht]

Indeed. So why do you think that an historical Jesus would have necessarily been required for Paul to have believed that God revealed Christ in him?

If I understand your question correctly, I do not believe that. But that's not all I think Paul believed.

Not necessarily in the sense of what we would mean by that statement. He could have believed it simply because he believed that the scriptures told him that it was so.

In what sense then? I was not asking why (cf your "because ..."), but in what sense do you think Paul believed that there was an historical Jesus who had been crucified?

[robertb]

The Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines a ' fact ' as -

fact n. 1 thing that is known to exist or to be true. 2 (usu. in pl.) item of verified information. 3 truth, reality. 4 thing assumed as the basis for argument.  before (or after) the fact before (or after) the committing of a crime. in (or in point of) fact 1 in reality. 2 in short. [Latin factum from facio do]
So for your further education I shall ammend my earlier statement of facts -

Originally posted by Composer
Fact / in short: bible Paul is a fictional story book character

Fact / in short: bible jesus is another fictional story book character

Fact / in short: Whatever story book fictional character Paul says about fictional story book jesus is solely dependent on the men that wrote the man made story book bible.

Fact / in short: The legitimate evidence that the words of any alleged holy book is the words of a god given to men remains a constant zero!

Better luck next time!

Your apologetics-fu is weak.

[robertb]

If I understand your question correctly, I do not believe that. But that's not all I think Paul believed.

In what sense then? I was not asking why (cf your "because ..."), but in what sense do you think Paul believed that there was an historical Jesus who had been crucified?

Perhaps he simply had faith, the confidence in what he hoped for and assurance about what he did not see, that it was true. He does discuss having faith quite a bit. However, I am not convinced that Paul viewed Christ in a way that we would consider to be an historical view. in other words, he couldn't have told you the where and when. In reality, I think it very plausible that Paul viewed Christ as a revealed truth.

[robrecht]

Perhaps he simply had faith, the confidence in what he hoped for and assurance about what he did not see, that it was true. He does discuss having faith quite a bit. However, I am not convinced that Paul viewed Christ in a way that we would consider to be an historical view. in other words, he couldn't have told you the where and when. In reality, I think it very plausible that Paul viewed Christ as a revealed truth.

Hilarious use of Hebrews 11,1:

Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων.

Now, do you have any texts of Paul in mind where he seems to view the historical existence of Jesus as an object of faith?

BTW, I will soon have a more substantive review of the texts you've mentioned so far with some additional texts for your consideration. Thank you for your patience.

[robertb]

Hilarious use of Hebrews 11,1:

Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων.

Now, do you have any texts of Paul in mind where he seems to view the historical existence of Jesus as an object of faith?

BTW, I will soon have a more substantive review of the texts you've mentioned so far with some additional texts for your consideration. Thank you for your patience.

:) Glad you like it.

I am not sure that there is a historical view, per se, in Paul, without forcing it onto the text.

[37818]

Originally posted by Composer
Fact / in short: bible Paul is a fictional story book character

Fact / in short: bible jesus is another fictional story book character

Fact / in short: Whatever story book fictional character Paul says about fictional story book jesus is solely dependent on the men that wrote the man made story book bible.

Fact / in short: The legitimate evidence that the words of any alleged holy book is the words of a god given to men remains a constant zero!

I tell you what. Let's wait till the day you die. (I hope it is a long long time from now for your sake.) And then you will have what ever facts there may be. Oh, wait, if after death, there is no consciousness, then you were right, if not in the whole, at least in part.

[robrecht]

:) Glad you like it.

I am not sure that there is a historical view, per se, in Paul, without forcing it onto the text.

I agree, at least for the most part. Paul does not write as an historian, either in the modern or any contemporary sense. But that he did not view Jesus as a person who actually lived and died is pretty hard to plausibly defend.

[robrecht]

Thesis: robertb takes Paul at his word when he says that Christ was revealed in him through the scriptures.* robertb understands by this that Paul is clearly identifying the source for his knowledge about Christ as being a hidden mystery, revealed through the prophetic writings. Furthermore, he believes Paul to be saying that the only sources for Paul's knowledge about Jesus are scripture and personal divine revelation.

Robrecht's Antithesis: The only word I disagree with above is the word only.

Texts referenced in support of the thesis:

Gal 1,11: Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον: ...
For I want you to know, brothers, the gospel evangelized by me is not according to a man ...

- Do not equate the gospel with Paul's putative knowledge about Jesus, especially in his prior historical earthly existence. For Paul the gospel is much more, eg, it is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe (Rm 1,16). Thus, for him, it is in almost no way comparable to mere human knowledge.

Rom 16,25-27: [Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν κατ' ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος, μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας: ἀμήν.]
To the one who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to a revelation of a mystery kept silent for eternal ages but now made manifest through prophetic scriptures according an order of the eternal God for the obedience of faith, made known to all the nations, **by means of the wise God alone through Jesus Christ to whom be glory into the eternities, amen. [**or more commonly: to God alone wise ... be glory ... ]

- Again, there is no reason here to equate Paul's gospel with mere human knowledge of an earthly Jesus active in history prior to the revelation. The preaching of Jesus Christ (assuming an objective genetive, but much less so for a subjective or genitive of origin) did not concern the earthly life or existence of Jesus. I have not yet said anything about the content of the mystery spoken of here. If you had not brought up 1 Cor 2,6-10, I would have as it is succintly expressed there (as well as previously in Romans and elsewhere).

1 Cor 2,6-10: Σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις, σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τῶν καταργουμένων: ἀλλὰ λαλοῦμεν θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην, ἣν προώρισεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν: ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν, εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν. ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται, Ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος: τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ.
We do speak wisdom among the perfect, but a wisdom not of this eternity nor of the rulers of this eternity that are in decline. We speak, however, God's wisdom by means of a mystery, a hidden wisdom, which God ordained before eternity for our glory, which none of the rulers of this eternity knew, for if they knew, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, things eye has not seen and ear has not heard, not even entered into the heart of man, these things God has prepared for those who love him. To us God has revealed [these things] by the spirt; for the spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

- Again, this mysterious hidden wisdom of God has not been perceived by human eyes and ears (cf also 1 Cor 2,11.13; 2 Cor 4,3-4). The key touchpoint with history of God's wisdom, his hidden mystery, ordained from all eternity, was precisely not apparent to those of this age. If they had known that Jesus was the Lord of glory, they would not have crucified him. The only touchpoint with history mentioned here is the crucifixion, which was done by the rulers of this age, not knowing whom it was they crucified. The revelation that Paul received from God concerns the meaning and interpretation and great significance of the crucifixion. For Paul to say that he received his gospel from God in no way discounts whatever knowledge he might have had of Jesus from other means.

The knowledge of Christ to which Paul is aspiring is in no way mere historical knowledge but rather is comparable to the very faith of Christ; it is a knowledge of him and the power of his resurrection, which also includes sharing in his sufferings and being conformed to his death; it is to grasp Christ even as he is himself grasped by Christ, a peace which surpasses mere intellectual understanding (Phil 3,9-10.12 4,7; cf 2 Cor 4,10).

So, everything which Paul knows of Jesus Christ by faith, by revealed mystery, experiential suffering, and mysticism really tells us nothing of what Paul may have known of an historical Jesus. The only real intersection with potential knowledge of an historical person or event is the crucifixion of Jesus, whom Paul very strongly believes is indeed the Christ. But that belief that Jesus is the Christ, even the Lord of Glory, does not seem to have been shared by those whom Paul believes crucified him (1 Cor 2,8 1 Thes 2,15).

So what might Paul have known about Jesus prior to receiving this mysterious divine gospel? He doesn't tell us what he knew about Jesus prior to receiving his call to preach the gospel, but he certainly tells us that he had knowledge of the Christian movement prior to his call. Knowledge that he acquired prior to and apart from his call to preach his gospel. A different source of knowledge. He knew enough of the Christian movement to oppose it (Gal 1,23 Phil 3,6). And he tells us that he specificall knew Christ in a different way, according to the flesh, prior to the way he now knows Christ (2 Cor 5,16):

Ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κατὰ σάρκα: εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν.
And thus we regard no one according to the flesh; even though we once knew Christ according to the flesh we know him thus no longer.

cf. NAB: "With us therefore worldly standards have ceased to count in our estimate of anyone; even if once they counted in our understanding of Christ, they do so now no longer."

I have been preparing a more extensive treatment of 2 Cor 5,16, but it is not ready yet. I also have thoughts on other texts of Paul that relate to an additional, traditional source of knowledge about Jesus. But did not want to strain your patience to its breaking point so I have decided to post this much for now, even 'though there are a few points even in the above that I have not verified fully.

Footnote:
*Notice that nowhere in any of these passages does Paul say that Christ was revealed in him through the scriptures. There are indeed other passages where Paul speaks of Christ being manifest in him in various ways, but not revealed in him through the scriptures. It is not clear whether robertb intends anything significant by putting these two prepositional phrases together or if it was merely a casual expression, but, as it happens, it is not a Pauline expression.

[37818]

For the record the Apostle Paul seemed to know about a Jesus before he converted, as he wrote, "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." -- 1 Corinthians 15:9. The writer Luke cites Saul (Paul) for doing this very thing. (Acts 22:4, "And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.")

Also Paul appeals to scripture, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

[robrecht]

For the record the Apostle Paul seemed to know about a Jesus before he converted, as he wrote, "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." -- 1 Corinthians 15:9. ... Also Paul appeals to scripture, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

I agree with you, 37818, but if I understand robertb's position, I think he will merely say that the Christ spoken of by the church before him may have merely been a mythologlical interpretation of texts of the Jewish scriptures, not necessarily an actual person who existed in the normal sense of the term. But, if this gospel of a mythological scriptural Christ preceded Paul, then he shouldn't believe Paul when he says he did not receive his gospel from others. It preceded him, he rejected it, then he accepted it. Furthermore, if Paul spoke of this Jesus as an actual person and not merely a mythical scriptural construct, he would seem to have been deceived, at least in part, by those who believed prior to him in a merely mythical scriptural construct. To this point, robertb has not wanted to admit this.

[37818]

Acording to 2 Peter 1:16, Peter wrote, " For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." And according to respective NT texts Peter and Paul knew each other.

[robrecht]

And he tells us that he specifically knew Christ in a different way, according to the flesh, prior to the way he now knows Christ (2 Cor 5,16):

Ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κατὰ σάρκα: εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν.
And thus we regard no one according to the flesh; even though we once knew Christ according to the flesh we know him thus no longer.

cf. NAB: "With us therefore worldly standards have ceased to count in our estimate of anyone; even if once they counted in our understanding of Christ, they do so now no longer."

2 Cor 5,16 seems to be an off-hand comment that is not well explicated in the immediate context, but for our purposes it is clear enough what he means. He once had a different way of viewing Christ than he does now. His present gospel perspective on Christ is not the only way one can know Chirst, ot the way he himself previously knew Christ. Some have proposed more far reaching interpretations of this little verse, eg, Johannes Weiss and others, think it points to a time when Paul actually knew of Jesus' Jerusalem ministry while he was still alive. His student, Rudolph Bultmann, understands Paul to say he has no interest in the historical Jesus, apart from his death. Who knows, perhaps some may even advance a mythicist interpretation?

Can we further explicate what Paul likely means in this brief expression? Our first attempt to understand this verse is to place it in its larger context of the letter in which it appears.

The context of 2 Corinthians does offer some hints to help us see something of Paul's contrast in the way he has previously known Christ according the flesh, but no more knows him in this way. Previously he knew Christ according to the flesh, but, by contrast, the way Paul knows Christ now is rather by God's light, God the one ordering light to shine out of darkness has shiningly (ie, truly) shone in our hearts so we might have light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4,6, cf 2 Cor 3,7.13-16.18). When the (our) gospel is hidden, it is hidden to those being lost, those whom the God of this eternity has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God shine on them (2 Cor 4,3-4). One may think that Paul was previously so blinded when he knew Christ according to the flesh.

The contrast between how Paul has in the past known Christ according to the flesh, but no more knows him in this manner, is also reflected in a number of other contrasts that Paul highlights in the larger context. Paul no longer knows people according to the flesh (2 Cor 5,16), for the Corinthians (the work of his ministry) are written in his heart, known and read by all men as written by the Spirit of God (2 Cor 2,3). Paul in the practice of his ministry has renounced hidden shameful things, not walking in craftiness nor being deceitful regarding the word of God, but commending themselves in openness of the truth to the conscience of all men before God (2 Cor 4,2). One is perhaps tempted to think of an possibly implied contrast between Paul's current ministry in the gospel and his earlier ministry in Judaism, the ministry of death vs ministry of the Spirit, which is ever more glorious (2 Cor 3,7-11; 4,1). Paul contrasts the suffering he has endured in his ministry for the sake of the Corinthians (2 Cor 4,5.7-15), noting that they look not at the things that are seen but at the things that are not seen, for the things seen are temporal, while the things not seen are eternal (2 Cor 4,18), walking by faith not by seeing (2 Cor 5,7). All of this ministry is for the Corinthians sake and Paul's recounting of it in the immediately preceding context is for the Corinthians to boast in response to those who boast in appearances and not in the heart (2 Cor 5,12.13). It is ultimately Christ's reconciling death for all that those who live, live not for themselves, but for him who died for them and rose again--that is the way Paul in his reconciling ministry now sees Christ, not as he once did according to the flesh (2 Cor 5,13-6,1). Paul's ministry is then further described in a series of contrasts, showing how the reality is indeed the opposite of normal appearances, eg, he is sorrowful, yet always rejoicing, poor yet making many rich, having nothing but possessing all things (2 Cor 6,10).

So an off-hand comment does seem to fit into the larger context in a way that makes sense. Paul's new experience of the Christ has transformed his view of Christ and also transformed his view of others in the practice of his current ministry. He now sees Jesus by the light of God, the God who ordered light to shine out of darkness, which has truly shone in his heart, our hearts, so that we might have light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. This is different from how Paul previously knew either Jesus as a mere man or the Messiah as previously conceived by him.

[37818]

. . . When the (our) gospel is hidden, it is hidden to those being lost, those whom the God of this eternity has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God shine on them (2 Cor 4,3-4). One may think that Paul was previously so blinded when he knew Christ according to the flesh.

This translation you are using with ". . . the God of this eternity . . ." is pretty non-standard. For one that badly translated "this eternity" biblically has an end, so it is no kind of eternity. And that the god effectively worshiped by those of "this eon" are the lost, would not be worshiping the true God, else they would be saved and not blinded from the truth of the gospel do to unbelief.