Did Jesus Exist?

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Justin tells us that the Mithra ritual was similar to the eucharist, and he tells us elsewhere (chapter 51 at Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)) that the demons who imitated Jesus did it before the Christians did.
The discussion about Mithras entered this thread because you claimed that both Paul and the gospelers copied their information about Jesus instituting the eucharist from the rite practiced by the Mithras cult. Now what do we know about this rite. Previously, you linked to this Wikipedia page and urged me to get information about the Mithras cult from it. (See post #281). I then responded by actually reading the page and quoting the following to you in post #285:

Little is known about the beliefs of the cult of Mithras. Modern accounts rely primarily on modern interpretation of the reliefs.
No Mithraic scripture or first-hand account of its highly secret rituals survives, with the possible exception of a liturgy recorded in a 4th century papyrus, which may not be Mithraic at all. The walls of Mithraea were commonly whitewashed, and where this survives it tends to carry extensive repositories of graffiti and these, together with inscriptions on Mithraic monuments, form the main source for Mithraic texts.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the archeology of numerous Mithraea that most rituals were associated with feasting - as eating utensils and food residues are almost invariably found. These tend to include both animal bones and also very large quantities of fruit residues. The presence of large amounts of cherry-stones in particular would tend to confirm mid-summer (late June, early July) as a season especially associated with Mithraic festivities. The Virunum album, in the form of an inscribed bronze placque, records a Mithraic festival of commemoration as taking place on 26 June 184. Beck argues that religious celebrations on this date are indicative of special significance being given to the Summer solstice; but equally it may well be noted that, in northern and central Europe, reclining on a masonry plinth in an unheated cave was likely to be a predominantly summertime activity. For their feasts, Mithraic initiates reclined on stone benches arranged along the longer sides of the Mithraeum - typically there might be room for 15-30 diners, but very rarely many more than 40.Counterpart dining rooms, or were to be found above ground in the precincts of almost any temple or religious sanctuary in the Roman empire, and such rooms were commonly used for their regular feasts by Roman 'clubs', or collegia. Mithraic feasts probably performed a very similar function for Mithraists as the collegia did for those entitled to join them; indeed, since qualification for Roman collegia tended to be restricted to particular families, localities or traditional trades, Mithraism may have functioned in part as providing clubs for the unclubbed.
Assuming that's accurate (and you'd look rather foolish if you insisted that the page which you yourself linked to and endorsed is not accurate) we see that there's no evidence of any 'rite' with any similarity to the eucharist in the Mithras cult at all. The only other piece of evidence that you can offer is the following from Justin the Martyr:

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
While you prefer to emphasize the next-to-last sentence, obviously the last sentence is important as well. Justin says specifically that what he knows about the mysteries of Mithras involves bread and water (not wine) with 'certain incantations' in the 'rites of one who is being initiated'. He does not say that there is any imitation of the specific aspects of the eucharist. Furthermore, it raises the obvious question of why you're so willing to trust Justin. If you're not a Christian, you obviously believe that most of Justin's writings are flatly false, so how can you simultaneously insist that this particular one has to be true and then stretch beyond what it actuallys says to a claim that the entire scene of Jesus starting the eucharist comes from the Mithras cult?

Now, looking at what Paul wrote and what the gospelers wrote about the eucharist we can see that they both knew the following things. (1) Jesus instituted the eucharist on the night he was betrayed to the authorities. (2) It involved bread and wine. (3) He said that the bread was His body. (4) He said that the wine was his blood. (5) He remarked that the presense of his blood in the wine represented the New Covenant he was making. (6) He told his followers to take bread and wine and repeat the process in remembrance of him. So if you wanted to claim that Paul and the gospelers copied from the Mithras cult (or any other source), you would need to prove that the rite of the Mithras cult (or that other source) had properties # 1 through 6. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that either the Mithras cult or any other source had even one single one of those six properties, much less that they had all six.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The only other piece of evidence that you can offer is the following from Justin the Martyr:
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
And as I said, Justin also said the devils instituted imitations of Christianity within the Mithras cult before Christians practiced it.

While you prefer to emphasize the next-to-last sentence, obviously the last sentence is important as well. Justin says specifically that what he knows about the mysteries of Mithras involves bread and water (not wine) with 'certain incantations' in the 'rites of one who is being initiated'. He does not say that there is any imitation of the specific aspects of the eucharist.
Correct. Nobody is saying the Mithras rites and the Christian rites are carbon copies of each other, only that one could have influenced the other, or that both could have come from a common source.

Furthermore, it raises the obvious question of why you're so willing to trust Justin. If you're not a Christian, you obviously believe that most of Justin's writings are flatly false, so how can you simultaneously insist that this particular one has to be true and then stretch beyond what it actuallys says to a claim that the entire scene of Jesus starting the eucharist comes from the Mithras cult?
I would never say that everything Justin says is true, or everything he says is false. We must always consider that he could be a biased source. However, since he says that the Mitras followers did this before Jesus, then that is evidence that they did, but it is not absolute proof.

Now, looking at what Paul wrote and what the gospelers wrote about the eucharist we can see that they both knew the following things. (1) Jesus instituted the eucharist on the night he was betrayed to the authorities. (2) It involved bread and wine. (3) He said that the bread was His body. (4) He said that the wine was his blood. (5) He remarked that the presense of his blood in the wine represented the New Covenant he was making. (6) He told his followers to take bread and wine and repeat the process in remembrance of him. So if you wanted to claim that Paul and the gospelers copied from the Mithras cult (or any other source), you would need to prove that the rite of the Mithras cult (or that other source) had properties # 1 through 6. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that either the Mithras cult or any other source had even one single one of those six properties, much less that they had all six.

Yes, there most likely was a common source between the gospels and Paul on the eucharist, and I was not clear on this when I first wrote. Peter and the Jerusalem Apostles are referred to by both Mark and Paul, and they could be the source of the communion stories by both writers.

This does not prove that the Jerusalem Apostles knew an earthly Jesus. They appear to be following a Christ whom God revealed to them on a mountaintop. They could have instituted the eucharist and baptismal rituals. There is no known link between them and the Q followers of Syria/Galilee until the synoptics link them years later. See post #243.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
(And as you know, I don't regard II Cor. as being a book that teaches an earthly Jesus.)
Yes, I know that you don't regard to Corinthians as teaching about an earthly Jesus. You've put both letters to the Corinthians on your list of pre-70 letters which you've built your case around from the start. But both 1 Cor and 2 Cor do contain numerous references to the earthly life of Jesus. I and others have pointed them out to you many times and gotten no response in most cases. So since the letter in question does teach about an earthly Jesus an AED used and trusted that letter, we can assume that AED believed in an earthly Jesus. We could assume that even if AED didn't say directly that Jesus was a man on earth several times. Your interpretation of Paul's letters depends on ignoring what certain Greek words and phrases mean and substituting new meanings that nobody had ever heard of prior to the late 20th century. It is hardly reasonable to suppose that AED would use such interpretations, since they didn't exist until almost two thousand years after he died. Since you're doubtlessly going to ask me exactly where 1 Cor and 2 Cor indicate an human, earthly Jesus, here's a partial list.

For starters in 1 Cor 2, Paul says:
 
Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
Previously you've claimed that "rulers of this age" refers to demonic beings rather than human rulers. (You said that many scholars agree on this, but when I asked you to name the scholars you never responded.) However, there are several reasons why we can know that the straightforward interpretation, in which this passage refers to Pilate and others involved in the execution of Jesus, is correct. First, the theme that Paul is hitting over and over again in the first two chapters of this book is the contrast between the wisdom of humanity and the wisdom of God. He never mentions demons or wicked spiritual forces in any way, shape, or form. Consequently this verse only fits in at all if the "rulers" are human; it's a complete misfit if "rulers" refers to demons. Second, the Greek word that is translated "ruler" is archon. The word simply means 'ruler, commander, or chieftain', and that's the way that it's used in the Bible the overwhelming majoirty of times. The only time when Paul uses the word to refer to Satan is in Eph 2:2 and there he has to go out of his way to clarfiy that archon designates a non-human. If he wanted to refer to Satan in 1 Cor 2, he would surely say so directly. Third, whenever any NT author used archon to indicate Satan they used it in the singular; we have no examples of it being used that way in the plural. Since the instance under discussion is plural, we can be sure it does not refer to Satan or spiritual forces, but rather to earthly rulers. Fourth, Paul said "rulers of this age", with the word for "age" being the Greek aion. If he instead wanted to refer to Satan under the implied assumption that Satan rules the universe while God rules Heaven, he would have used kosmos rather than aion.
 
In 1 Cor 5:7, Paul says: "Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed." It's important to note here that paschal, the Greek word that became "Passover", did not usually refer to the holiday but rather to the sacrificial lamb and the act of sacrificing, tying the sacrifice of Jesus to the Passover festival and to Jerusalem. So Paul is aware not only that the death of Jesus, but also when and where it occured.

Throughout 1 Cor, when Paul refers to material that he received from the Lord (i.e. Jesus), he often uses the preposition 'apo' to indicate 'from'. (For example, 1 Cor 11:23) If Paul was claiming that the Lord had spoken directly to him and given this information, Paul would have used the word 'para' instead of 'apo', because 'apo' indicates that the Lord was the original source of the information but that it was passed to Paul by someone else, the apostles being the only candidate. This torpedoes your theory that Paul claimed to have received information about the lord only directly and never from tradition. Earl Doherty is aware of this problem and responds by claiming that when Paul used 'apo', it actually meant what everyone else meant by 'para'. He cites a source, Moulton's A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Unfortunately for him, that source doesn't actually say what he claims it says. See here for further discussion:

Earl Doherty. Jesus Puzzle Arguments Refuted

1 Cor 9 refers to James as "the Brother of the Lord".

1 Cor 15 refers to the burial of Jesus. Burials occur on earth, nobody in the first century (or any other time that I'm aware of) ever referred to a burial in Heaven.

As I've already mentioned, when Paul presents his views on marriage in 1 Cor 7 he attirbutes the rule against divorce to the Lord. Since it is the opposite of the divorce rules in the mosaic law, Paul can't be meaning that this comes from scripture, so he must instead be refering to the teaching of Jesus Christ on the matter.

And of course we cannot neglect Paul's recounting of Jesus instituting the Eucharist in 1 Cor 11:23-25. With the wording of the passage closely matching that of Luke's gospel, Paul must have heard about the event from the same source that Luke did. The passage gives further evidence that Paul was aware that Jesus did this during the Passover feast, with His followers present, since he addresses the followers directly, and since the Passover feast involved breaking and sharing bread and drinking wine.

Moving on to 2 Cor, we can find other references to the earthly life of Jesus. For example, in 2 Cor 8, Paul says "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich." Lest you try to escape with the metaphorical excuse yet again, I can point out that the Greek word in question, ptocheuo, literally means "to beg" and indicates that Paul knew how Jesus lived while on earth.

And numerous references to the suffering and death of Jesus. In the Jewish conception of Heaven there is no suffering and no death.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
You quoted back my suggested exercise, but you did not tell us if you actually did it. Did you do what I suggested?
I have in fact responded, clearly, many times. I may not have specifically prefaced my responses with the words "I responded to your challenge and the results were...", but I have written at great length about how Paul uses scripture; it's absurd for you to suggest that I did not. Since I've never disputed that Paul sometimes uses Old Testament quotations in meanings different than their original context, what on earth do you intend to accomplish by repeating it? You sound like a parrot with OCD who's been listening to a broken record.

The point that I'm trying to make is to refute the way that you use this fact. Often I've pointed out that your interpretation of Paul's letters flatly contradicts what Paul, as a Jew, would have believed. For example, Paul would have believed that the Messiah could only be a human being, because that's what the Jews believed. You, on the other hand, somehow take this fact that Paul uses Old Testament quotes out of context, and somehow jump from there to assuming that you can just believe Paul would attach any meaning whatever to any part of Jewish dogma. Such a jump is unwarranted. The way that Paul used Old Testament scripture is right in line with how all Jews of the time that we know of used Old Testament scripture. Therefore it is not evidence that Paul had radically different interpretations of scripture than others Jews. It is, in fact, evidence that he viewed scripture the same way as other Jews. That is my argument. For you to continue bleating about how Paul misinterpreted Old Testament passages will not accomplish anything other than making it painfully evident that you're afraid to face the main issue here. The main issue is that your theory depends on Paul believing things that Paul, as a first-century Jew, would never have believed. It's obvious why you won't face this fact, because it's directly fatal to your entire theory.

So with that said, do you actually have any meaningful response to what I wrote in post #357 or do you simply want to run away from the topic yet again?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You quoted back my suggested exercise, but you did not tell us if you actually did it. Did you do what I suggested?
I have in fact responded, clearly, many times. I may not have specifically prefaced my responses with the words "I responded to your challenge and the results were...", but I have written at great length about how Paul uses scripture; it's absurd for you to suggest that I did not.
Oh, yes, you responded. I acknowledged that you have responded. That wasn't my question.

I was asking if you had actually done the exercise I suggested. It is a very interesting and insightful exercise. I think all students of the New Testament should do it. It opened my eyes the first time I did it.

I didn't say you had to do it, but I was curious if you had.
Since I've never disputed that Paul sometimes uses Old Testament quotations in meanings different than their original context, what on earth do you intend to accomplish by repeating it? You sound like a parrot with OCD who's been listening to a broken record.

Sometimes? Don't you mean most of the time?

I don't mean to sound like a parrot with OCD--really I don't, really I don't, really I don't, really I don't-- but I was just curious what you thought about this. I had never heard you acknolwedge that Paul misrepresents what the scripture says.

When you say Paul sometimes uses Old Testament quotations in meanings different than their original context, are you intending to say he sometimes says that those Old Testament quotations mean something different from what they clearly mean in context? If so, that is dishonest, yes? Are you saying that Paul is sometimes dishonest?

Or if it is acceptable to misrepresent what writers said in the OT, is it also Ok if others here use "Midrash" to misrepresent what you say?

I can understand a Midrash that combines things metaphorically to make a new story. I cannot agree with Midrash that quotes people out of context and pretends they are saying something they are not.

The point that I'm trying to make is to refute the way that you use this fact.

If Paul is sometimes dishonest when he quotes the OT, why can't I use that to show that he might not be demanding absolute fidelity to the OT in the statement you question? Why is that a wrong way to use that fact?

Often I've pointed out that your interpretation of Paul's letters flatly contradicts what Paul, as a Jew, would have believed. For example, Paul would have believed that the Messiah could only be a human being, because that's what the Jews believed.

Paul would have never believed different from the Jews? Really? Paul seems to insist that he need not follow Jewish teaching.

You, on the other hand, somehow take this fact that Paul uses Old Testament quotes out of context, and somehow jump from there to assuming that you can just believe Paul would attach any meaning whatever to any part of Jewish dogma. Such a jump is unwarranted.

Have you read the way Paul uses scripture? Once you have seen a few instances of what he is doing, it becomes possible to believe that he might twist the OT to mean anything he wants, provided he thought he could convince unlearned people of it.

The way that Paul used Old Testament scripture is right in line with how all Jews of the time that we know of used Old Testament scripture. Therefore it is not evidence that Paul had radically different interpretations of scripture than others Jews. It is, in fact, evidence that he viewed scripture the same way as other Jews. That is my argument.


OK, so if I ask a Jewish Rabbi if he agrees what Paul says about the scriptures concerning the Messiah, will that Rabbi tell me that Paul used Old Testament scripture right in line with how all Jews of the time that we know of used Old Testament scripture? That's odd. I would have thought otherwise.

For you to continue bleating about how Paul misinterpreted Old Testament passages will not accomplish anything other than making it painfully evident that you're afraid to face the main issue here.
If we are discussing how Paul interprets an OT passage, why is not the fact that Paul consistently misrepresents OT passages not pertinent to that discussion?

The main issue is that your theory depends on Paul believing things that Paul, as a first-century Jew, would never have believed. It's obvious why you won't face this fact, because it's directly fatal to your entire theory.
OK, and your theory demands that Paul, as a Jew believed that a human being, the son of a human being, was the creator of the universe? Isn't that something that no first-century Jew would have believed?

So with that said, do you actually have any meaningful response to what I wrote in post #357 or do you simply want to run away from the topic yet again?

Sure, you say,

Here's part of what Dr. Blomberg says:
When midrash refers to methods of interpreting Scripture, one or more of the ancient lists of rules handed down by the rabbis is usually in mind. The slightly older contemporary of Jesus, Hillel, is credited with formulating seven main rules, but by the middle of the second century these had been expanded into thirty-two.
So there we see clearly that midrash did not give the writer free reign to interpret any passage as meaning anything he wanted. Rather, it was a specific method with specific rules.

So there are several sets of rules to do Midrash. Which set did Paul use? Did the original writers agree that one could use that set of rules to interpret his writings? If so, how do you know that? If not, how can one make up rules to interpret a passage in a way the author disagrees with? How do you know Paul picked the right set of Midrash rules?

People used rules of Midrash, and came to wildly different endings, didn't they? If one can use Midrash and conclude wildly different things, how do you know anything about Midrash is valid?

And how do you know Paul's use of Midrash was better than the Rabbi's tongue in cheek story of the Rooster Messiah using Midrash?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Uh huh. This branch of the debate began with the contention about whether Paul believed that Jesus, the Messiah, lived on earth or not. You are trying to argue that Paul believed the Messiah did not live on earth. That's the conclusion that you're trying to prove. Now you're invoking the conclusion that you're trying to prove as part of the argument to support that conclusion--a classic case of circular reasoning. Why would you do something so desperate? Could this be your way of admitting that you can't name any first-century Jewish person or group who viewed the Messiah as anything other than an earthly human beings.
Huh? What you asked was, "Can you show me a single piece of evidence that any Jewish group believed otherwise?" And so I mentioned those who I thought believed otherwise.

If you had asked me for somebody who played for the Yankees, I would have said "Babe Ruth". Would you then complain that this is circular reasoning, for Babe Ruth actually played for the Yankees! If I am asked to name a Yankee, and can pick anybody I want as long as he was not actually a Yankee, then, yes, I would lose that challenge. That game is rigged.
Second, when you say "the epistles seem to indicate a Christ that did not live on earth", you are wrong. They clearly, unambiguously say that Christ lived on earth many times.
And yet where are the quotes of Jesus? When people follow the founder of a new movement, they love to talk about what he said. Why don't they quote Jesus?

Where are the stories of the miracles? Surely he must have done something that impressed them. As the Bible tells of several who rose from the dead, and none of them started a new religion, there must have been something else impressive about Jesus on earth. Why don't they talk about it?
A few examples:

1. Paul claimed to be spread the "gospel". [Romans 1:1] As already mentioned, this term refered to a report about events, not merely an interpretation of ancient scriptures, and Paul's introduction to Romans is likely modeled on the birth announcements for a child of the Emperor.
OK, back to Romans 1:1-4.

1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
2 which He promised [or announced] beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3 concerning His Son, who was born [literally made] of a descendant [literally the seed] of David according to the flesh,
4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Questions:
Where did Paul say Jesus come from? He was made of the seed of David
Where did Paul say he learned his gospel? from the prophets in the holy Scriptures
How does Paul know he was the Son of God with power? The spirit told him His Son rose from the dead.
Where did this occur? In the flesh (kata sarka) which can mean in the realm of flesh, that is in the physical world instead of the realm of spirit.


2. Paul says that Jesus was "born of a descendant of David according to the flesh". [Romans 1:3]
Or "he was made of the seed of David in the realm of the flesh."
3. Paul describes Jesus Christ as a man repeatedly. You say that you can only find two instances. I can find many more.

"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." [Romans 5:15-9]
So there are three references to Jesus Christ as a man in that passage alone.
Explained at Christ As "Man": Does Paul Speak of Jesus as an Historical Person?.
4. Further, the entire point of chapter 5 of Romans is to juxtapose how "sin entered the world through one man" with "God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ". Since Paul certainly thought that Adam was a man, the comparison only makes sense if Paul thought that Jesus was a man.
Is the man Christ Jesus a literal man, in Paul's view, or a Platonic dual in heaven?
5. Paul says that Jesus was buried. [Romans 6:4 and many other passages.]
Well yes, but the same verse says that Paul was buried!!!

Paul was physically alive when he said he was buried, yes? Ah, you say he was metaphorically buried? And why could not Jeus have been metaphorically buried?
6. Paul says that God "sent Jesus Christ in the likeness of sinful flesh". [Romans 8:3]
"In the likeness". Why doesn't Paul say "as a man of flesh"?
7. Paul says that Jesus Christ was "an offering for sin" by which "he condemned sin in the flesh". [Romans 8:3-4] As understood by the Jews, "offerings" were only physical things, animals in most cases.
See Hebrews, which refers to a heavenly sacrifice.
8. Paul says that Jesus Christ was an Israelite. [Romans 9:4-5]
And Mithras was Persian. Your point is?
9. Paul says that "Christ has become a servant of the circumcision" (i.e. was circumcised.) [Romans 15:8]
Now you want to discuss the nature of any incisions made on the divine's--uh--member?

No thanks. Let's just say this verse is not definitive as to the nature of any cuts that may or may not have been made.
10. Paul quotes Jesus Christ numerous times, as I've already discussed.
Where does Paul make a clear quote of the earthly Jesus? Please give us one example.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
(continued)

So there are ten indications that Paul believed Jesus Christ did live on earth. We've gotten this far without even exhausting the book of Romans. References to Jesus' earthly life are equally dense in Paul's other letters. In addition, the idea the epistles indicate a Christ who did not live on earth has been addressed at length by scholars. See any of these links:
musly1
Doherty on 'According to the Flesh'
Earl Doherty's "Evolution of Jesus refuted; Jesus existed proved, Q community disproved--page 1
http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.html
Historical Jesus or Jesus Myth: The Jesus Puzzle
My link can beat up your links! :)
So there's a very small portion of the total amount of evidence that Paul believed Jesus Christ to be a human being who lived on earth. What do you have to say in response to justify your claim that "the epistles seem to indicate a Christ who did not live on earth"? I rather suspect that your response, if it comes at all, will involve many claims about passages being metaphorical and a lot of demands that we agree to disagree. But who knows? Maybe you'll surprise us.

For instance Col 1:12-22 (which was probably actually written by a fan of Paul, not Paul himself).
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--

How is this describing Jesus of Nazareth? If you had only this epistle, would you think any of this happened on earth? The blue above clearly refers to past events in heaven. The red refers to present and future events in heaven. And the green? Well you could force that to be on earth, but if you didn't have the gospels, would you be reading it that way?

And yes, it does say his fleshly body, but that could only mean he descended to some level of the firmament where he took on fleshly form and died. There is not a hint here that when on earth, he was a personal aquaintance of the authors peers.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat

Now where exactly is your reference that states that the messiah (Hebrew mashiyach) can only be of the literal seed of David?

Okay, here's my reference. It comes from the Jewish encyclopedia, an authoritative source on Jewish religion and history. It comes from the article about the Messiah:

But though the name is of later origin, the idea of a personal Messiah runs through the Old Testament. He ...will be a scion of the stock of Jesse.
So there you have it in so many words. The Jews believed that the Messiah would be a physical person, a Jew, and a descendant of Jesse. David was Jesse's son, so by pointing out that Jesus was a physical descendant of David, Paul was emphasizing how Jesus was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah that the messiah would be a descendant of Jesse. The article confirms that this belief in the messiah as a person pervaded Judaism, and that particularly in Roman times beliefs in the personal Messiah was very strong. It does not include any mention of any interpretation of the Messiah that matches the one which your theory depends on. (The authors of the article are well aware that the term translated "messiah" is used in other contexts as well, but that has no bearing on the question at hand.) If you don't like that particular source, you can look up ancient Jewish beliefs about the Messiah in any other scholarly source and find the same information.
Uh, I own a copy of the OLd Testament. If the Old Testament actually says what you claim, that the messiah must be the literal seed of David, and must be a human being, then please show me the verse that says that. Endless handwaving about refereces that say it is in there somewhere means nothing to me. If it is there, what verse says that?
Now if, on top of that, I wanted more evidence of what Jewish beliefs about the Messiah were during the first century I have plenty of other sources. I could look to Josephus and see what he wrote about messianic beliefs and messianic pretenders. I could look to pagan historians such as Tacitus who discussed it somewhat. I could look to Philo of Alexandria and note that even though he broke ground in putting metaphorical and spiritual interpretations on many Old Testament passages, he nonetheless believed in the messiah as a descendant of David. I could even point out that Maimonides, writing in the Middle Ages, listed belief in an earthly messiah as one of the key tenets that all Jews had to follow. I could point to the Talmud, which says a great deal about the messiah and all of it simply assuming a descendant of David. So there's no shortage of evidence that first-century Jews believed the messiah could only be a physical human descended from David.
Now this list may not quite contain every first-century source we have that mentioned the Messiah, but it certainly contains the major ones.
OK, many expected an earthly messiah. Is there any verse that said that the messiah needs to be the literal seed of David?
So with that established, we're back to the original question. Jews in the first century believed that the messiah would be a flesh-and-blood human being and descendant of David. According to your theory, Paul believed the exact opposite. Why is it reasonable to believe that Paul would believe something opposite to what all Jews believed? (Bear in mind, I've already responded to your circular reasoning argument that it's reasonable to believe that Paul believed it because Paul believed it.)
Writings of the Gnostics indicate belief in Christ as an Aeon or emanation of God, not as a literal person. Where did this belief come from? It is very difficult to believe that the complex world of emanations from God that Valentinus taught could have started from an earthly Jesus. He speaks of over 30 Aeons including Sophia (wisdom), Logos, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Where did his belief in a spirit-world Christ come from? Most likely it came from others who believed in a spirit Messiah.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
We don't have any variant readings of that text, but there is good reason to think that passage may have been changed somtime after 70 AD but before the book was widely copied. Doherty cites "Mack, Koester, Pearson, Meeks, Perkins, Brandon" as sources who dismiss I Thes 2:14-16. (see Jesus Project Demise ). The two main objections are that v16 says that "wrath is come upon them [the Jews] to the uttermost," an obvious reference to the events of 70 AD having already occured. Also Paul's outcry against his own nationality, the Jews, is totally out of character, as Paul is always reserved in his condemnation of Jews.
Both of these objections have been addressed. For example, the article by Marcus Boekmuehl which I link to below addresses both of them at length. The statement in verse 16 that "wrath has come upon them to the uttermost" is not necessarily a reference to the desturction of Jerusalem or the war of 66-73 A.D. In fact, that translation from the NASB is not a particularly good one. A better translation would be this from the NIV: "The wrath of God has come upon them at last." Boekmuehl delves into the particular language of this phrase at length, noting how these words were used in contemporary Christian and Jewish writing. As he concludes:
Neither a final eschatological condemnation of the Jews nor some other catastrophic event (cf. ‘to the uttermost’ in AV and other older translations) is required by this phrase. In rendering these two words ‘at last’, RSV and NRSV are right to find here, as in Luke 18:5, an adverbial phrase carrying somewhat more modest temporal connotations.
Concerning the entire argument, Boekmuehl sees no reason to believe that Paul is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, and he gives a strong argument that there were several other events that this could be referring to.

The actual historical reference need have nothing to do with AD 70; indeed it could reasonably be supposed to denote a number of different events in the years preceding the composition of 1 Thessalonians.
He also addresses the issue of Paul's supposed attack against the Jews being out of character and contrary to what Paul says in other letters. As Boekmuehl shows, the word that's used to reference "the Jews" in verse 14 did not necessarily refer to the Jewish people as a whole. In fact, when Paul wanted to refer to the Jewish people as whole, he typically used a different word. There's reason to believe that this Paul was directing this condemnation against a certain subset of Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.

Here's the article:
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2001_52_1_01_Bockmuehl_1Thess2.pdf
OK, so you have arguments that say I Thes. 2:14-16 was not inserted later. I have shown you arguments that say otherwise. So now what? Will this now lead to yet another of those infamous take-no-prisoners, no-holds-barred, fights to the last man standing over this issue, or will we agree to disagree?
So in conclusion, there's no overwhelming reason to believe that 1 Thess 2:14-16 is an interpolation.
So you win unless I have overwhelming reason on my side? Whatever happened to the principle of going by the preponderance of the evidence?
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Me: Paul says that Jesus Christ was an Israelite. [Romans 9:4-5]

doubtingmerle: And Mithras was Persian. Your point is?
I should think that my point is very clear. We are having a debate about whether Paul believed Christ to be a human being or not. Paul says that Jesus Christ was an Israelite. He uses the precise word Israelites, which only means a human member of the nation of Israel. Search the Bible all you want but you'll find no use of the word for anything else, and certainly no place where any spiritual being is refered to as an Israelite. Therefore we can safely conclude that Paul believed Jesus to be a human being and a member of the nation of Israel. Are you now clear on what my point is, or do I have to be even more pedantic about it?

As for your claim that "Mithras was Persian", that brings up two questions. First, what the blazes are you talking about? Second, why do you want to change the subject away from the fact that Paul clearly says that Jesus was an Israelite? (I think anyone who's still reading the thread can guess the answer to the second question.)



 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Explained at Christ As "Man": Does Paul Speak of Jesus as an Historical Person?.

Is the man Christ Jesus a literal man, in Paul's view, or a Platonic dual in heaven?
Yeah, it's explained, but it's not explained very well. Let's take a look at what Doherty says.
We have to start by realizing that the modern mind has long abandoned those views of the universe which for the ancients governed their beliefs in gods and salvation. The concepts of the first century CE have little resonance with the scientific knowledge of the 20th and 21st centuries. When the eye of the ancient philosopher or even the average layperson looked skyward, it imagined it could see a populated spirit world where the bulk of the workings of the universe took place. Near the bottom of this multi-level system lay humanity’s sphere of material existence; only Sheol or Hades, the underworld, was lower. Various supernatural layers (usually seven) extended upwards, filled with spiritual life forms, reaching to the highest heaven of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled in timeless perfection. Most important, the nature of this reality involved far-reaching correspondences between the higher and lower realms, between spirit and matter.
This is a decently accurate picture of Platonic thought. It is wrong to say that "the ancient philosopher or even the average layperson" adopted this viewpoint as if it were unanimous. There were many different philosophies circulating in the relevant time period. Therefore we cannot simply declare that any particular person held this view. Unless we have specific evidence that a person viewed the world in this manner, we can't ascribe a Platonic worldview to that person. (We'll call this Doherty's Error #1, or DE1 for short.) In particular we should be extremely skeptical of any claim that a Jew held this worldview, due to the already cited evidence that Jews of the time rejected any influence of Greek thought on their religion. Not suprisingly, Doherty immediately does exactly that.
These concepts became expanded in various ways, showing a range of expression in Greek philosophy as well as in Jewish and other near-eastern thought. A sacred site such as the Jerusalem Temple, for example (as in Hebrews 8 and 9, Wisdom of Solomon 9:8, etc.), was the earthly counterpart of a greater, more perfect heavenly Temple. (Even the Babylonians had held such an idea.) Nations, rulers, groups on earth possessed a corresponding angelic or divine being who represented them, a superior counterpart in heaven, a champion.
In using the quote from Wisdom of Solomon as an example, Doherty is flat wrong. A quick check of the relevant passage will show that it compares the temple to the tabernacle tent, exactly as the Old Testament does on countless occasions. It does not compare the Temple to a temple in Heaven. Now on to Hebrews, the idea that Hebrews reflects a Platonic understanding has already been rebutted in an article that I linked to earlier, which you (as usual) simply refused to respond to.

Doherty's Use of Hebrews

Since asking you to click on links and read and respond to what they say is an exercise in futility, I will instead quote the relevant portion right here:
Doherty places much emphasis on the influence of Platonic thought on Hebrews. According to Doherty, "there can be no denying that Hebrews' thought world is fundamentally Platonic. This is a divided, dualistic universe of realms heavenly and earthly, genuine and imitation." Although I agree that there was Platonic influence on the author of Hebrews, Doherty greatly overestimates it. Moreover, he tends to ignore and explain away many references in Hebrews which affirm other, Jewish influences which stress the linear thought of Jewish eschatology and Jewish messianic expectations. Those Jewish ideas stressed God's direct intervention in human affairs. "YHWH, as the creator and covenant God, was irrevocably committed to further action of some sort in history...." (N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, page 247). Along these lines, Jewish messianic expectations centred around a human messiah--not a purely mythological saviour active only in the "lower celestial realm." The Epistle to the Hebrews affirms and reinforces these beliefs, but with its own spin.
For comparative purposes, a useful way to describe Platonic thought is that it is vertical. The imperfect on earth is but a shadow of the perfection in the heavens. The relationship is vertical and static. Jewish belief, however, though containing its own vertical relationship between God's actions in heaven and effects on earth, stresses a horizontal perspective. The world--even the heavens--is not static, it is moving forward according to God's plans to a final reconciliation of heaven and earth. In Hebrews there is undoubtedly some Platonic influence; at least in language. However, it is subordinated to the horizontal Jewish perspective stressing God's intervention in earthly affairs. To the great detriment of a dispassionate understanding of Hebrews, Doherty chooses to view Hebrews only through a Platonic lens.
Indeed, the first passage in Hebrews demonstrates the fallacy of cramming Hebrews into a Platonic box. It stresses both Jesus' role as a human agent of God and a decidedly non-Platonic worldview:
Hebrews 1:1-2: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." Jesus' actions take place not in a static, murky realm, but in a set place in history. While actions in the platonic heavenly realm are timeless and static, Jesus did not speak as God's son until "these last days." Additionally, Jesus' role as God's spokesperson is compared to the flesh and blood prophets of the Jewish forefathers "long ago." Hebrews uses the same terms to describe the actions of the prophets "long ago" and Jesus "in these last days." There is a definite parallel being drawn between God speaking through his earthly prophets and God speaking through his earthly Son. "Each of the main phrases in the first verse (of old, to our fathers, by the prophets) is matched by a corresponding, and to some extent contrasting phrase in the second (in these last days, to us, by a Son)." (R. McL. Wilson, The New Century Bible Commentary: Hebrews, page 30). This is far from platonic.
Whatever uses will be made of the 'Platonic' category of ideas later in the letter, we must see with complete clarity that here in the opening statement the relationship between the two forms of revelation--the imperfect and perfect--is given not as between an imperfect human or earthly form and a spiritual and heavenly form, but as earlier and later forms. The disclosure of the Word of God takes its shape as a history, a history which has a past and a present (and, indeed, a future). (Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, page 36).
As Luke T. Johnson puts it:
Platonism is ... entirely reworked by Hebrews. First, Hebrews shows a very acute awareness of history: God spoke of old, and speaks now, but differently. The past also serves as a type or example for the present, which is "greater" and "more real" (see 4:11). Second, the distinction between heaven and earth is not only cosmological, it is also existential. "Heaven" describes God's existence and all that can participate in it, whereas 'earth' denotes merely human existence. Third, Hebrews exalts rather than denigrates the physical. Only because Jesus was and had a body could he be a priest. His body, furthermore, is not cast off at death but exalted. Fourth, Hebrews emphasizes change: Christ came once and will come again; he was, for a little while, lower than the angels but is now exalted and enthroned. Platonism is here stretched and reshaped around belief in a historical human saviour whose death and resurrection made both his body and time axiologically rich. (Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, page 422)...

In summary, although the view that the author of Hebrews writes from a strongly Platonic perspective used to hold much sway in the academic community, more thorough and recent scholarship has rightly rejected this notion. There are simply too many important differences.
So that's what people who actually know what they're talking about think of Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews. (We'll call this Doherty's Error # 2, or DE2 for short.) Next up from Mr. Doherty:
Paul and the earliest Christians thus lived at a time when the world of matter was viewed as only one dimension of reality, the observable half of a larger, integrated whole, whose other—invisible—half was regarded as the “genuine” reality, accessible to the intellect.
I've earlier called you out on using the passive voice. Earl Doherty uses the same trick here. "lived at a time when world of matter was viewed..." Was viewed by who? Some people held that view and others did not; Paul was among the ones who did not, or at least neith you nor Mr. Doherty can give a lick opf evidence that he did. (We'll call this Doherty error #3, or DE3 for short.)

So now I've given reasons for rejecting the entire basis of Doherty's argument on that page, we'll look at the specifc reasons give for interpreting the phrase "the one man, Jesus Christ". What is the word that's translated as "man"? It's anthropos, the word that is throughout the New Testament used specifically to indicate a human man as distinct from a spiritual being. You claim that Earl Doherty has explained this usage at the link above, but I don't see where he did so. Would you mind quoting here the exact passage that explains why, if Paul thought Jesus to be a spiritual being and not human, Paul referred to Jesus with the word that specifically indicates a human being and not a spiritual one? Thanks in advance!

For quick reference here are the original claims; I still view them as standing until you give a specific reason why they don't.
3. Paul describes Jesus Christ as a man repeatedly. You say that you can only find two instances. I can find many more.

"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." [Romans 5:15-9]
So there are three references to Jesus Christ as a man in that passage alone.

4. Further, the entire point of chapter 5 of Romans is to juxtapose how "sin entered the world through one man" with "God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ". Since Paul certainly thought that Adam was a man, the comparison only makes sense if Paul thought that Jesus was a man.


 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
OK, back to Romans 1:1-4. ...
Questions:
Where did Paul say Jesus come from? He was made of the seed of David
...
Where did this occur? In the flesh (kata sarka) which can mean in the realm of flesh, that is in the physical world instead of the realm of spirit.

Or "he was made of the seed of David in the realm of the flesh."

Emphasis and bright orange letters mine. Since the start of the thread you've been arguing that Paul believed Jesus Christ to be a heavenly being who never lived in the physical world. You have vigorously rejected any claim that Paul believed Jesus to live in the physical world. So suddenly you're admitting that in Paul's view Jesus existed and did things "in the physical world instead of the realm of the spirit". That's a sizable step in the right direction for you at least. Now we just need to establish exactly what the "realm of the flesh" means. Luckily that won't be too difficult to do. All we have to do is link to this article, which I've linked to at least five times already, and which you've resolutely refused to acknowledge or respond to. Since merely linking a sixth time obviously isn't going to change anything, I will instead quote what the article actually says:

According to the Flesh

Even Doherty if were right that "born of a descendent of David" could be a reference to a spiritual entity, surely Paul's clarification that his birth was "according to the flesh" dispels any doubts about Paul's belief that Jesus was a human being? Not for Doherty. To him, when Paul says "according to the flesh" he actually means an incorporeal spirit-being in an lower celestial realm.
A) A Sphere of Flesh and a Sphere of Spirit?
Perhaps Paul is using kata to refer to something like 'in the sphere of the flesh' and 'in the sphere of the spirit.' This is a suggestion put forward by CK Barrett. Such a translation is, in fact, quite useful and possibly accurate.
Doherty, op. cit., page 83.
To Doherty, relying on Barrett, Paul is saying that Jesus was "born of a descendent of David" in the lower celestial realm and resurrected by the Spirit in the highest level of heaven. It is obvious, however, that Barrett is suggesting nothing of the sort. Far from it. It is Doherty and Doherty alone who claims that "sphere of the flesh" may mean "lower celestial realm." Barrett is affirming that "according to the flesh" means that in the world of human beings, Jesus was literally descended from David.
The preposition here rendered 'in the sphere of' could also be rendered 'according to,' and 'according to the flesh' is a common Pauline phrase; in this verse, however, Paul does not mean that on a fleshly (human) judgment Jesus was a descendant of David, but that in the realm denoted by the word flesh (humanity) he was truly a descendant of David.
CK Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, page 78.
Elsewhere, Doherty refers to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (VII) to find support for his personal interpretation of "according to the flesh." As with Barrett, however, it actually contradicts his conclusions. Even an interpretation of "according to the flesh" as meaning "sphere of the flesh" would be just as damaging to Doherty's theory. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament describes "sarx as the Earthly Sphere. In Romans 1:3-4 Paul contrasts the sphere of the sarx with that of heaven or pneuma. In this limited an provisional sphere Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, but the decisive thing comes in the sphere of the pneuma." Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged), page 1004. Even though it was believed that demons may exist in the realm of man, they are never referred to as sare. (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VII, page 128 n. 237). It is not their sphere, but the sphere of human beings. "Kata sarka distinguishes this as an earthly and human relationship from a relationship of a different kind. Sare stands for the sphere of man." (Ibid., pages 126-27).
Furthermore, Doherty's attempt to equate "according to the flesh" as occurring in the lower celestial realm and "according to the spirit" in the highest celestial realm is without any other support. It is an interpretation of his own creation that seems to have no justification other than an attempt to dispel the clear meaning of these terms. Indeed, as will be discussed below, Paul elsewhere discusses this dichotomy between "according to the flesh" and "according to the spirit." In none of these cases is Paul referring to events in one heavenly place versus events in another heavenly place. Rather, he is comparing normal human events and abilities versus those events and abilities animated or caused by the Spirit of God.
So to summarize: in the language of the time, "the realm of the flesh" meant the world of humanity, and was specifically used to indicate that someone was a human being doing human things rather than a spiritual being. Earl Doherty quotes two sources that supposedly say otherwise, but unfortunately for him (and you), both of those sources confirm that Doherty's interpretation is wrong and that my interpretation is right. Ouch. No wonder the blogger deleted my questions when I tried to ask Doherty to explain this.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Me: 6. Paul says that God "sent Jesus Christ in the likeness of sinful flesh". [Romans 8:3]

doubtingmerle: "In the likeness". Why doesn't Paul say "as a man of flesh"?
I don't know and for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter. What matters for this discussion is that Paul talks directly about the Incarnation, i.e. God sending his Son in the likeness of a human being. This proves that Paul believed that Jesus lived as a human being.

(It's odd that you'd ask why Paul doesn't say "as a man of flesh" as if that would surely confirm that Paul believed Jesus to be a human being. As we've just seen, Paul describes Jesus as a man and as a being of flesh in many other places.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
See Hebrews, which refers to a heavenly sacrifice.
You've been saying over and over again throughout this thread that Hebrews refers to a heavenly sacrifice, but it does not. I and others have explained to you, at length, with references, why this is not true. I have linked repeatedly to this article discussing the book of Hebrews, and you've just ignored repeatedly, much as you ignore every attempt by anyone to point you towards material from reliable sources. Here is the passage in question:
In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
So unfortunately for you, this passage does not say anything about a sacrifice in Heaven, nor about shedding blood in Heaven, nor anything of the sort. In fact, once we read in its context we'll see that it works againt you rather than for you. First of all, as I already noted in post #329, the author of Hebrews knew that Jesus was a human being living on earth and said so directly many times; nobody with any credentials in Bible study disputes that. Second, as I mentioned in that post, the author of Hebrews says that Jesus entered Heaven from outside--we'll see the importance of this in a minute. Now the passage I just quoted is Hebrews 9:16-23. In the opening verses of that chapter, the author describes the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle tent (later replaced by the Temple) and the annual ritual for sin atonement that involved the High Priest sprinkling blood in the Most Holy Place. The author hammers home the point that this annual ritual was an imperfect copy of the perfect sacrifice now made once and for all by Christ.

So what does this comparison tell us about the location of Christ's sacrifice? Well, where was the sacrifice by the High Priest performed? Fortunately we know exactly how the Jewish animal sacrifices were performed because the Old Testament gives us the (very) gory details, mainly in the opening chapters of Leviticus. The sacrifices were performed outside the tabernacle tent (later outside the Temple). After the High Priest had performed the sacrifice and shed the animal's blood, then the High Priest could enter the tabernacle tent and the Most Holy Place. But not before. So thus when we see the author of Hebrews hammering on the similarity between that sacrifice ritual and the sacrifice of Jesus, we know this author believed that Jesus was sacrificed, shed his blood, and afterwards entered Heaven. Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you and you've ignored, Hebrews 13:11-14 tells us point blank where Jesus was executed. So while you're obviously quite attached to the notion that Hebrews 9 talks about a sacrifice in Heaven, the text actually rules out that possibility.
Let's just say this verse is not definitive as to the nature of any cuts that may or may not have been made.
It looks definitive to me. Unless you can give any interpretation for Romans 15:8 and back it up with a sound argument for why your interpretation should be preferred, why should we not interpret it in the obvious way, as saying that Jesus Christ was circumcised?
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Me: Paul quotes Jesus Christ numerous times, as I've already discussed.
doubtingmerle: Where does Paul make a clear quote of the earthly Jesus? Please give us one example.
I and other members of this thread have already spent an enormous amount of time giving you many examples of Paul making clear quotes of Jesus. Since your apparent intention is to ignore those examples, there obviously isn't much point in giving them to you over and over again. If you're truly interested in looking at the examples in which Paul directly quotes Jesus and says that he's quoting Jesus, you could look at the posts on the topic which have already been written, such as #220, #239, #363, and a great many others. Alternatively you could read one of the several articles on the topic that we've linked to, such as this one. Alternatively you could read one of the several books on the topic that we've recommended to you, such as this one and this one. Any of those sources are quite sufficient documentation of the fact that Paul quoted Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Me: In addition, the idea the epistles indicate a Christ who did not live on earth has been addressed at length by scholars. See any of these links:

musly1
Doherty on 'According to the Flesh'
Earl Doherty's "Evolution of Jesus refuted; Jesus existed proved, Q community disproved--page 1
http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.html

So there's a very small portion of the total amount of evidence that Paul believed Jesus Christ to be a human being who lived on earth. What do you have to say in response to justify your claim that "the epistles seem to indicate a Christ who did not live on earth"?
In response all we get is this:

Now everything that's said at your link is specifically addressed and rebutted by my links, so how exactly did you conclude that "your link" can "beat up" my links? Have you actually read any of my links? Do you have anything to say in response to what my links say? Need I remind you of what you've said before?
doubtingmerle said:
I am here to share and to learn from anybody with interest in the subjects that fascinate me.
If you are here to learn, then why are you not too afriad to respond to any link that might challenge your beliefs? Is your belief system so fragile that it simply can't stand exposure to any contrary opinion? (Don't give us the excuse that you don't have time. If you have time to pour countless hours into writing posts in this thread, then you have time to spend a few minutes reading a few articles.)

Next up:
doubtingmerle said:
For instance Col 1:12-22 (which was probably actually written by a fan of Paul, not Paul himself).
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--

How is this describing Jesus of Nazareth? If you had only this epistle, would you think any of this happened on earth? The blue above clearly refers to past events in heaven. The red refers to present and future events in heaven. And the green? Well you could force that to be on earth, but if you didn't have the gospels, would you be reading it that way?

And yes, it does say his fleshly body, but that could only mean he descended to some level of the firmament where he took on fleshly form and died. There is not a hint here that when on earth, he was a personal aquaintance of the authors peers.
Okay, let's go slowly on this one. First of all, we are having a discussion here about whether Paul believed in a physical Jesus. I have already posted dozens of passages in which Paul refers to a physical Jesus, along with four links to further discussions. Your response so far is that you're not willing to address the links or any of the arguments contained therein, and you'll only address a small fraction of the passages in which Paul refers to an earthly Jesus, in those cases offering lame excuses that I've shot down with trivial ease. Now, you are instead insisting that we look at an epistle which, in your own words, was probably not written by Paul. So the best evidence you can offer that Paul believed what you say he believed is something not even written by Paul? Why are you so eager to talk about something Paul didn't write and so reluctant to talk about what he did write? It's almost as if you know that you'll lose badly in any discussion about Paul's writings so you have to get the focus off that topic and onto something else at all costs.

Next up you say: "If you had only this epistle, would you think any of this happened on earth?" The answer is yes, as I'll explain below. But first I'll point out that the argument you're using is one that you've used since the start of the thread, and many persons have pointed out the flaw in it many times. We don't only have this epistle, we have four gospels and many epistles, all testifying about Christ's life on earth. Why on earth do you keep returning to the same logical fallacy that you've humiliated yourself with some many times before. Are you hoping that we'll forget what we've said earlier in the thread? Isn't it clear by now that that's not going to happen?

Now on to Colossians. If we only had Colossians, we'd have plentiful evidence that Christ had lived on earth rather than Heaven. First of all, Colassians refers to Christ dying, shedding blood, and being nailed to a cross, and such things don't happen in the Jewish conception of Heaven. Second, Col 1:22 refers to Christ's fleshy body (in Greek: auto sarx soma). You respond to this by saying "that could only mean he descended to some level of the firmament where he took on fleshly form and died." As usual, you don't give any reason why anybody should prefer that interpretation. The Jews did not believe that there are multiple "levels" of the firmament, so we can throw out that excuse. Furthermore, this passage again uses that word that's plagued use since the start of the thread: sarx, which the NT writers and others of the time used specifically to designate things on earth and not in Heaven. If you have any doubt about this fact, the following link will prove me right:

Doherty on 'According to the Flesh'

Third, Col 2:15 says: "When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him." I don't think the writer of Colossians believed that this happened in Heaven. Fourth, Col 2:9 says directly that Jesus was a phyiscal, earthly being. So that's how we could look at Colossians alone and determine that the author believed Jesus Christ to be a historical figure on earth. Now in the unlikely event that you respond to this post at all, I bet we're going to hear a lot about the author using words metaphorically and perhaps a few demands that we agree to disagree. But who knows? Maybe you'll surprise us.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Well yes, but the same verse says that Paul was buried!!!
Paul was physically alive when he said he was buried, yes? Ah, you say he was metaphorically buried? And why could not Jeus have been metaphorically buried?
Three exclamation marks? You must think that statement is a real winner. I, on the other hand, do not. First of all, Romans 6 isn't the only passage referencing the burial of Jesus. There is also 1 Cor 15:3-5:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Certainly nothing about that passages suggests anything metaphorical. The straightforward interpretation of it is that it describes the death, burial, resurrection, and reappearance of Jesus. So knowing that Paul believed Jesus to have had a literal burial, we can conclude that Romans 6 refered to the same. For the purposes of establishing that Paul believed Jesus had an earthly burial, we only need the 1 Cor 15 passage; the Romans 6 passage is just icing on the cake.

However, in response to your question of "why could not Jeus [sic] have been metaphorically buried?", the answer ought to be obvious. In Romans 6, Paul talks to his audience about the fact that they are born into a "life of sin" and by killing that life of sin they can be reborn into the "life of God". When Paul says "we are buried" in verse 4, that burial is a figurative reference to the end of the life of sin. But Paul believed that Jesus never sinned, and thus it's impossible that Paul intended the metaphorical idea of killing the life of sin to extend to Jesus.

Your theory is that Paul did not believe that Jesus was a human being. Whenever anyone points to one of the many passages in which Paul says that Jesus was a human being, you insist that it's a metaphor. But each time you're begging the question: a metaphor for what? A metaphor is when one says that two things are the same which actually are not, but which have some resemblance. If Paul, in saying that Jesus was buried, was using a metaphor, the obvious question arises: what resemblance is there between the literal meaning of burial and what supposedly happened to Jesus? Indeed, one might ask the same question about all the other instances in which you've jumped up with "metaphorical" as an excuse for ignoring what Paul says in the epistles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums