Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Yes. Mythicism Is Still A Joke

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by psstein View Post
    History isn't about what's possible, it's about what's probable, as you acknowledge. It's very tough to explain where Paul gets all his information. He says he receives the gospel he preaches. Carrier and others have always misread that as "he got everything from a vision."
    Well Paul literally says he got it from a vision in Galatians 1:

    I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.


    Which is in line with the various other statements in the Pauline epistles about having visions of Jesus and getting teachings from them, as I discussed in the other thread. Paul tells one church that the cut-off for the authority of such visions is if anyone says "Jesus be cursed" you know they're not speaking with authority from God's spirit (1 Cor 12:3) but if they say "Jesus is Lord" then they are being guided by the Holy Spirit and presumably whatever else they have to say is divinely revealed truth. And elsewhere Paul asks that the people in the church who have spiritual powers to get teachings from Jesus will be able to confirm that Jesus totally agrees with the long list of church rules Paul appears to be making up (the gospels don't appear to give any support to them) regarding speaking in tongues and women being silent: "Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord." (1 Cor 13:37)

    In the Pauline churches, there seems to be a lot of getting teachings from Jesus in visions occurring. More than a few scholars have called the Pauline churches "proto-gnostic" for this reason, and there seems to be a continuum from them into the later fully fledged gnostic Christianity of the 2nd century where spiritual information obtained through spiritual visions was the order of the day. Paul certainly seems to want to make it clear in Galatians 1 that he does not need, nor is he subservient to, the existing Christian Jesus-disciples and their gospels or preachings about Jesus, because he got his gospel from divine revelation. Paul is at the very least pretending to his churches and trying to have them believe that his teachings come from visions and have not been passed onto him by men who heard Jesus talk in the flesh. I happen to think it's most likely that Paul is lying here and that actually his knowledge about Jesus almost certainly does come from the earlier disciples and theirs likely comes from actually interacting with Jesus. But I would also say it's also possible that it's visions all the way down - i.e. Paul is getting getting his information from the earlier disciples who themselves got it from a vision and Jesus only ever existed in the visions of the members of the early Christian cult group and was not actually a fleshly person.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Well Paul literally says he got it from a vision in Galatians 1:

      I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.


      Which is in line with the various other statements in the Pauline epistles about having visions of Jesus and getting teachings from them, as I discussed in the other thread. Paul tells one church that the cut-off for the authority of such visions is if anyone says "Jesus be cursed" you know they're not speaking with authority from God's spirit (1 Cor 12:3) but if they say "Jesus is Lord" then they are being guided by the Holy Spirit and presumably whatever else they have to say is divinely revealed truth. And elsewhere Paul asks that the people in the church who have spiritual powers to get teachings from Jesus will be able to confirm that Jesus totally agrees with the long list of church rules Paul appears to be making up (the gospels don't appear to give any support to them) regarding speaking in tongues and women being silent: "Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord." (1 Cor 13:37)

      In the Pauline churches, there seems to be a lot of getting teachings from Jesus in visions occurring. More than a few scholars have called the Pauline churches "proto-gnostic" for this reason, and there seems to be a continuum from them into the later fully fledged gnostic Christianity of the 2nd century where spiritual information obtained through spiritual visions was the order of the day. Paul certainly seems to want to make it clear in Galatians 1 that he does not need, nor is he subservient to, the existing Christian Jesus-disciples and their gospels or preachings about Jesus, because he got his gospel from divine revelation. Paul is at the very least pretending to his churches and trying to have them believe that his teachings come from visions and have not been passed onto him by men who heard Jesus talk in the flesh. I happen to think it's most likely that Paul is lying here and that actually his knowledge about Jesus almost certainly does come from the earlier disciples and theirs likely comes from actually interacting with Jesus. But I would also say it's also possible that it's visions all the way down - i.e. Paul is getting getting his information from the earlier disciples who themselves got it from a vision and Jesus only ever existed in the visions of the members of the early Christian cult group and was not actually a fleshly person.
      Yeah, no, this is complete bunk, par for the course from you. As Larry Hurtado recently pointed out in his blog,

      Originally posted by Greek Prepositions and Careful Exegesis by Larry Hurtado
      In the current discussion about Paul and Jesus, it’s important to have a sensitive appreciation of how Koine Greek writers used prepositions. One of the impressive features of ancient Greek is the development and use of a number of prepositions, which allowed for a rich variety of nuances in making statements.

      Two prepositions in particular feature in the Pauline texts that receive a lot of attention on the question of whether Paul received tradition from other early believers, or got everything by “revelation”.

      In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul affirms that the gospel message that he proclaimed (i.e., the full acceptance of Gentiles into the circle of believers without requiring male-circumcision and proselyte conversion) was not “kata anthropon” (which appears here to mean, “not of human origin” or “not humanly devised”). Then, Paul continues by affirming “nor did I receive it para anthropou” and that “I was not taught it,” but “[it was/came] by a revelation of Jesus Christ” (di’ apokalypseos Iesou Christou; v. 12).

      In essence, Paul here denies that his apostolic mission was of human design or that his message of Gentile enfranchisement had been taught to him by others. Instead, these things came what he took to have been a “revelation” (from God, as v. 16 makes clear), the content of that revelation focused on Jesus (the genitive, Iesou Christou of v. 12 is therefore an “objective genitive”, God the revealer, Jesus the one revealed). The experience conveyed to Paul Jesus’ validity as “the son of God,” and his error in previously opposing the Jesus-movement.

      It appears also that from this experience Paul claims to have obtained his firm sense that he was given a divine mission to the Gentiles (vv. 15-16). (Note, by the way, the statement in Acts that Paul received his “ministry” [diakonian] “from the Lord” [para tou Kyriou], i.e., his commission to the Gentiles portrayed as directly from “the Lord”.)

      The expression in Gal. 1:12, para anthropou bears further scrutiny, however. And it is important to compare this phrase with another phrase used in 1 Corinthians 11:23, where Paul says that he received “from the Lord” an account of Jesus’ actions and words set “on the night that he was handed over” (related in vv. 23-25). The expression translated “from the Lord” in 1 Cor 11:23 is “apo tou kyriou“. So, what does it mean here? Is Paul saying that he got the account of Jesus’ actions/words in vv. 23-25 directly from the risen/glorified Jesus, i.e., through some sort of auditory/visionary experience? Paul does relate such an experience in 2 Corinthians 12:1-9, so it’s a fair question to ask.

      And here is where Paul’s use of particular prepositional phrases may help us. If you check uses of para + genitive and apo+ genitive in sentences relating to giving or receiving information and related matters, it appears that the apo-phrases have a more general sense indicating origin of the information, whereas para-phrases often appear to have a somewhat more precise connotation, indicating more than apo-phrases a direct reception or communication of something.

      As an example, note Philippians 4:18. The Philippians had sent Paul support during his imprisonment, conveyed to him via Epaphroditus. So, here Paul first says that he received what the Philippians sent para Epaphroditou (that is, handed to Paul directly by Epaphroditus). But then, probably because Paul wished to emphasize the direct relationship between himself and the Philippians, he refers to “ta par’ hymon” (“the things/gifts from you”). The latter expression seems intended to emphasize that the Philippians had sent the gifts to him personally. Similarly, in Acts 28:22, the Roman Jews say that they’ve received reports from others, but they want to hear from Paul first-hand: para sou akousai.

      So, in 1 Cor 11:23, if Paul had wished to emphasize that what follows came directly from Jesus (e.g., in a vision experience), one would expect him to have stated that it came “para tou Kyriou“. (See textual note below.) That, instead, he refers to the following account as “apo tou kyriou” here suggests that he meant only to indicate the origin of the material, not its immediate means by which he received it. So, it is dubious to treat vv. 23-25 as material that derived from some spiritual audition of the risen Christ.

      Notes:

      –On Koine prepositions and NT usage, see, e.g., C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963)

      –On Paul’s use of traditional material, Anders Eriksson, Traditions As Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians, Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series 29 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998).

      –Textual note: Though the likely original reading in 1 Cor 11:23 is “apo tou Kyriou”, there are textual variants suggesting that ancient readers, too, sought to grasp the precise sense of Paul’s statement. Codex Bezae and some Latin witnesses have para Kyriou (perhaps suggesting a more direct reception of the tradition) and some other witnesses have “apo Theou” (“from God”, ascribing more a divine origin).

      –In another interesting statement, note Galatians 2:6, where Paul emphasizes that the Jerusalem leaders didn’t lay on him any obligation in his visit. He starts a somewhat fractured sentence with the phrase “apo de ton dokounton einai ti” (literally, “from those regarded as something”), the use of apo here appropriate to his denying that the character of his mission derives from them.
      I have no idea where you're getting the idea that "More than a few scholars have called the Pauline churches 'proto-gnostic'". Where did you hear that from?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by psstein View Post
        That's a fringe position at best.
        Really? What's the ratio?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Really? What's the ratio?
          In terms of relevant PhDs?

          Everyone against 3.

          Comment


          • #50
            There's so much Mario Gilbert in the mythicist stories. Kind of sad, really.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by psstein View Post
              In terms of relevant PhDs?

              Everyone against 3.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by psstein View Post
                In terms of relevant PhDs?

                Everyone against 3.
                Nice. of course Jimmy is laughing too above, but only because he is ignorant enough not to understand how on point this is.


                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  In terms of relevant PhDs?

                  Everyone against 3.
                  The real irony is how many atheist scholars there are that face palm whenever a Christ myther rears their head.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    The real irony is how many atheist scholars there are that face palm whenever a Christ myther rears their head.
                    That's because all of those athiest scholars must actually believe that Jesus resurrected after 3 days and ascended up into the stars.
                    Last edited by JimL; 12-18-2017, 05:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      That's because all of those athiest scholars must actually believe that Jesus resurrected after 3 days and ascended up into the stars.
                      No. They rejected his divinity (if they didn't they wouldn't be atheists) but they weren't so foolish as to think that he never exisited

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        No. They rejected his divinity (if they didn't they wouldn't be atheists) but they weren't so foolish as to think that he never exisited
                        Doesn't really matter if they believe someone named Jesus existed, if they rejected his divinity then they are christ mythers.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Doesn't really matter if they believe someone named Jesus existed, if they rejected his divinity then they are christ mythers.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Doesn't really matter if they believe someone named Jesus existed, if they rejected his divinity then they are christ mythers.
                            You have a bizarre sense of what Jesus mythicism is:

                            For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                            From the conservative evangelical Richard Carrier



                            Minimum Historicity Claims
                            1. “An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in his life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
                            2. “This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
                            3. “This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).” (p. 34)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by psstein View Post
                              You have a bizarre sense of what Jesus mythicism is:

                              For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                              From the conservative evangelical Richard Carrier

                              Well you tell me psstein, if Jesus isn't god, is the story of jesus being god a myth?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Well you tell me psstein, if Jesus isn't god, is the story of jesus being god a myth?
                                It's a difference of:
                                - "Historical Jesus": There really existed a person named Jesus who formed a cult and taught some stuff, possibly vaguely along the lines of some parts of the gospels, whos followers (maybe at the time, maybe decades or centuries later) eventually came to believe was actually a god.
                                - "Jesus mythicism": The first Christian had spiritual visions / dreams / hallucinations which they interpreted as revealing to them a mystical figure they called "Jesus". From these spiritual visions they got teachings and stories, and the gospels are compilations of those. The gospel accounts are not based on any literal living breathing human person who taught things, gathered disciples, or founded Christianity.

                                The traditional secular/liberal position for the last couple of hundred years has been the former - that there was a dude named Jesus who was a self-appointed wandering religious teacher in the 1st century Judea, who founded the Christian movement, and who's followers subsequently came to believe all sorts of silly supernatural things about him (see Sathya Sai Baba for a modern parallel).

                                But more recently, people who have been following anthropological research into religious visionary experiences, have suggested that you need to give much more credence to the possibility that it wasn't Jesus who founded the early Christians and instead it was the early Christians who invented Jesus via their religious visions which they seem to have been quite keen on. So in this reconstruction the start of the book of Acts where it portrays a bunch of cultists having the "Holy Spirit" descend on them and all starting to talk in tongues and have visions etc is where historical Christianity begins and those crazy cultists subsequently then went on to invent the contents of the gospels based on their visions including inventing Jesus.

                                It's a case of did a person named Jesus found Christianity, or did the early Christians invent a fiction spiritual figure named Jesus?
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                62 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X