Did Jesus Exist?

[doubtingmerle]

Oh, he's finished?

Ah, good morning, everybody. Any lurkers still out there? I have a request of you.

You will notice that AlexBP and I have a dispute about whether Paul knew of the Jesus of the gospels.

First, look at some things we agree on: There were a group of men known as apostles who lived somewhere near Jerusalem and believed in "Christ". Peter, James and John, were prominent leaders of the group. They claimed to have seen Christ, and to have heard a voice from heaven declaring him as God's son. They called their Christ "Jesus". They probably practiced a eucharist and baptismal ritual. Paul spoke about them, and Mark writes of them in his book.

Now here is where we disagree: I think the "Christ" they saw never actually walked on earth with them. Rather, he was perhaps thought of as an emanation of God. Their primary knowledge of him was through their interpretations of the scriptures. Possibly they thought he had taken on human flesh, but did not walk on earth among them as a human being. Probably they "saw" him only in a vision. They probably called their heavenly Christ "Jesus". On the other hand, the "Jesus" of the synoptics is an invention of Mark based perhaps on a leader of a Q community in Galilee. Mark brought the Jerusalem apostles into his story to add realism, but their part in Mark's work is mostly fiction. Paul knew of the Jerusalem apostles, but had no knowledge of an earthly Jesus and probably had no direct knowledge of Q.

And so we come to this line of questioning: If Paul was worshipping the Jesus described in the gospels, then one would think he would base his teaching on the teaching of Jesus, that he would frequently give Jesus credit for the ideas he spreads, and that he would frequently quote Jesus. After all, when a new movement is founded by a charismatic leader, everybody in the movement speaks of that leader after he is gone. We find nowhere that Paul distinctly credits the earthly Jesus of the gospels for anything he teaches.

Jesus was supposedly God incarnate, a man who walked around preaching, and stirring the hearts of his followers, so they spread the message all over the Roman Empire. One would think their message would be filled with refrerences to his words. Why doesn't Paul say something like:

Jesus said, "Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find."

As Jesus taught, loving God and loving others are the most important commandments.

When you pray, pray the way Jesus taught his disciples.
​

Anything along those lines would indicate that Paul recognized the Jesus described in the gospels as an authority. We find nothing like that in Paul's writings.

AlexBP has made the claim, "Paul quotes Jesus Christ numerous times, as I've already discussed." I have asked him to show me one such actual quote. He will not do that, of course, for such quotes do not exist. We get a lot of diversions, but no actual quotes.

I am not looking for similar teachings or common words or vague references that Paul got something from the Lord (meaning from God). I am looking for a specific instance crediting an idea or phrase to the Jesus of the gospels.

So here is where you lurkers come in. Since AlexBP claims he has given us a quote, let's see if anybody can find it. You see his mass of writings and links. He tell us the quote is in there somewhere. Who can find it for me?

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.

Well, I sure cannot find it, but I have enlisted all the lurkers out there to help. If you have truly said what you claim, surely somebody will find it.

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.

Here is post #220-- http://www.christianforums.com/t7534255-22/#post57001324

Here is post #239-- http://www.christianforums.com/t7534255-24/#post57041597

Here is post #363-- http://www.christianforums.com/t7534255-37/#post57217878

OK lurkers, any luck finding it yet?

Alternatively you could read one of the several articles on the topic that we've linked to, such as this one.

I scanned down through that link, but certainly didn't find what I am looking for. The writer says, "we have looked at a lot of data that seems to suggest a large amount of verbal and thematic overlap between Jesus and Paul" (emphasis his) Sure there is verbal overlap. I don't dispute that. The point is Paul never gives the earthly Jesus credit for anything he teaches.

The fact that there is overlap, but no attempt to ever credit Jesus for teaching something very similar is odd. Why wouldn't Paul want to credit Jesus as his source?

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.

I don't need books, articles, or long-winded links. I need a specific reference where Paul clearly quotes the earthly Jesus. You could save yourself a lot of time by simply saying, "Paul quotes Jesus in Romans 20:76" or whatever reference you can find.

If Paul has truly done this numerous times, why not tell us one example?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Based on the evidence provided, Alex wins by a landslide. Based on a very thouroug understanding of Pauline theology, Greek/Hebrew/early Christian culture and cultural philosophies, Alex also wins (id be surprised if Alex isn't an NT Wright fan).

 

[GakuseiDon]

First, look at some things we agree on: There were a group of men known as apostles who lived somewhere near Jerusalem and believed in "Christ". Peter, James and John, were prominent leaders of the group. They claimed to have seen Christ, and to have heard a voice from heaven declaring him as God's son. They called their Christ "Jesus". They probably practiced a eucharist and baptismal ritual. Paul spoke about them, and Mark writes of them in his book.

Sounds like the same person to me.

Now here is where we disagree: I think the "Christ" they saw never actually walked on earth with them. Rather, he was perhaps thought of as an emanation of God.

"Rather"? Do you mean an emanation of God can't walk the earth? Did you show that anywhere?

Possibly they thought he had taken on human flesh, but did not walk on earth among them as a human being.

Where else would someone who had human flesh walk? In the sky? Have you shown this?

Probably they "saw" him only in a vision. They probably called their heavenly Christ "Jesus". On the other hand, the "Jesus" of the synoptics is an invention of Mark based perhaps on a leader of a Q community in Galilee.

Tell me about this leader of the Q community. Did he preach many of the things in the Gospels? Did he perform healing miracles, like in the Gospels? Did he preach repentence, like in the Gospels? Did he preach a coming "kingdom of God", like in the Gospels? Did he get off-side the religious establishment of the day, like in the Gospels? What in Mark was based on that leader of the Q community in Galilee?

And so we come to this line of questioning: If Paul was worshipping the Jesus described in the gospels, then one would think he would base his teaching on the teaching of Jesus, that he would frequently give Jesus credit for the ideas he spreads, and that he would frequently quote Jesus.

No, that is not a warranted assumption. Here is a long article by Alvin Plantinga, called "Advice to Christian philosophers". How many times would you expect Plantinga to refer to the teachings of Jesus or Christ?

Then look at Tertullian's "Ad nationes". How many references to Jesus or Christ? Then look at the general lack of historical details about anything in almost all early letters, to the extent that we can't accurately date them. Have you examined the literature of the day to determine whether your conclusion is warranted, or are you just assuming it to be the case?

Now look at Paul. You have now made him a primary source. Paul writes:
1 Cor 9[1] Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?

What does he tell us about his visions of Christ, or the others' visions? Where did they take place? When did they occur? What did Christ look like? What happened in the visions? Wouldn't you expect Paul to write more about these things?

After all, when a new movement is founded by a charismatic leader, everybody in the movement speaks of that leader after he is gone. We find nowhere that Paul distinctly credits the earthly Jesus of the gospels for anything he teaches... Paul knew of the Jerusalem apostles, but had no knowledge of an earthly Jesus and probably had no direct knowledge of Q.

1 Cor 7
[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
[11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Compare with Mark 10:
[2] And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him.
...
[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Next:

1 Cor 9
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

That refers to the apostles preaching the gospels, and possibly related to Mark 6:
[7] And he called [unto him] the twelve [apostles], and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
[8] And commanded them that they should take nothing for [their] journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in [their] purse:

Even if you attribute the above to the 'spiritual' Christ, then you have to admit that the spiritual Christ could somehow communicate commandments. But did the spiritual Christ only ever give two commands, with one being on divorce? And if there were more, why didn't Paul write about them?

Jesus was supposedly God incarnate, a man who walked around preaching, and stirring the hearts of his followers, so they spread the message all over the Roman Empire. One would think their message would be filled with refrerences to his words. Why doesn't Paul say something like:

Jesus said, "Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find."

As Jesus taught, loving God and loving others are the most important commandments.

When you pray, pray the way Jesus taught his disciples.
​

Anything along those lines would indicate that Paul recognized the Jesus described in the gospels as an authority. We find nothing like that in Paul's writings.

What about the ones above? And anyway, if Paul did write what you said, wouldn't you just attribute them to the spiritual Jesus anyway?

 

[razeontherock]

Not to detract from the above post, but Merle you are exploring the Divinity of Christ which is a good thing!

The Gospel is terribly diluted until one also embraces the humanity of Christ Jesus our Lord. It takes both to put it in gear! "Fully man, fully G-d." You would benefit from learning what this actually means, as in how it impacts us. Yes those results are hidden, but they are very real, and discoverable. I won't say that w/o that you got nuttin' though; just that it's a greater and more powerful truth, waiting for you to tap into it.

Could it be you have never experienced this or even witnessed it, and therefore you'd prefer to conclude it doesn't exist?


Final thought: I'm hoping others have addressed this ad nauseum by now, but why would you expect Paul (or anyone else) to repeat the things most commonly taught and read in the Churches? (The Gospels) That makes NO sense! Everybody knew that much, since they were continually taught from the beginning. What people needed was help processing that info, and applying it. All we see in Paul's Epistles is very specific problems in specific Churches being addressed, and some leadership training. You go out of your way to pretend Paul's NT contribution is some all-inclusive codification of the entirety of Christianity, which it's not. In order to get that, you'd need to have an experience w/ Jesus like the Disciples did on the road to Emmaus. Highly recommended btw

 

[doubtingmerle]

1 Cor 7
[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
[11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Compare with Mark 10:
[2] And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him.
...
[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Next:

1 Cor 9
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

That refers to the apostles preaching the gospels, and possibly related to Mark 6:
[7] And he called [unto him] the twelve [apostles], and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
[8] And commanded them that they should take nothing for [their] journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in [their] purse:

As I mentioned, these 2 references to what the Lord said appear to be what Paul got from God the Father, not what was heard from Jesus on earth.

But you did miss the big one, so I will slip it in first: In I Cor 11:23-25 Paul speaks of the last supper, and has Jesus saying words close to the gospels as we discussed earlier. This would be an example probably coming from a common source, probably from the Jerusalem apostles.

 

[AlexBP]

As I mentioned, these 2 references to what the Lord said appear to be what Paul got from God the Father, not what was heard from Jesus on earth.

But you did miss the big one, so I will slip it in first: In I Cor 11:23-25 Paul speaks of the last supper, and has Jesus saying words close to the gospels as we discussed earlier. This would be an example probably coming from a common source, probably from the Jerusalem apostles.

To you they "appear to be what Paul got from God the Father, not what was heard from Jesus on earth." To everybody else, they appear to be what Paul got from Jesus on earth, since no mention of God the Father is made in either of those passages. Moreover, Paul says directly that this is information he received from others on earth and not directly from God the Father.

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
​

If any of this sounds familiar, it's probably because I've posted this before and you, as usual, have never responded to it. Speaking of things that you've never responded to, I've asked you multiple times to read this article about Paul's explanations of where he learned about Jesus, and you never responded to that either. Thus I will again quote the relevant part here. (I have to break this into two parts because the board limits the number of words per post.)

In addition to the above references is the evidence of the Pauline corpus. Doherty discusses the Pauline evidence in the section following the one on "Apostolic Tradition." Here, I rebut Doherty's argument that Paul's references to having "received" and "passed on" tradition to his churches are speaking solely of a heavenly revelation to Paul. In reality, Paul passed on what he had learned from earlier Christians--most likely from the Jerusalem Church.
A. Paul's Revelation
Doherty begins by discussing what all agree is Paul's reception of a revelation from God.

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favour of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
​

Galatians 1:8-12
Doherty ignores the first part of the passage, which states that no revelation (even from an "angel from heaven") could supplant the tradition already established in the church. This is the opposite of what Doherty seems to think was the practice among the early Christians. Moreover, Doherty mistakenly assumes that every time Paul uses the term "received" he can only be referring to a divine revelation directly from God.
B. Received and Delivered Tradition
That is not the case, as we can see in Doherty's next example.

"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 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."
​

1 Corinthians 15:1-5.
Here we have the core of the apostolic tradition. That Jesus died, was buried, was raised again according to the scriptures, and appeared to many of his followers. According to Doherty, however, Paul did not receive this as an oral transmission from any Christian predecessor, but it as divine revelation from God. There are two main problems with this.
First, even though Paul claims in Galatians that he had a direct revelation from God, he also concedes that he laid his preaching before Peter, James, and John--and they approved of it. The Gospel Paul was preaching was the same as they were preaching. And, it was the same that was being preached prior to Paul's conversion. That the Gospel Paul is referring to is the same one that was taught by the apostles is made clear in Corinthians (though Doherty ignores this passage):

"For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I laboured even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed."
​

1 Corinthians 15:10-11
Paul could not be more clear that the Gospel to which he "received" and "passed on" to his churches--that Jesus Christ was dead, buried, and rose again bodily from the grave--was the same one that was preached by the other apostles. In other words, it is no innovation of Paul, but established apostolic tradition.
So while Paul claimed a revelation from God, he also admitted that he was passing along the pre-existing church traditions. Dr. Thompson explains Paul's use of tradition as follows:
​

"Paul insisted that he received his gospel and other revelations from God (Galatians 1:11-12, 15-17; 2:2; 2 Corinthians 12:1-7), but the content of his faith did not differ essentially from the faith of those who were Christians before him. After his conversion he preached the faith he once sought to destroy (Galatians 1:23; cf. Galatians 2:6, 9; 1 Corinthians 15:11). His emphasis on divine revelation in Galatians came in response to those who insisted on requiring Gentile Christian converts to keep Jewish traditions (circumcision, food laws, etc.). Writing to those who esteemed revelations, Paul reminded the Corinthians of the traditions he had passed on to them (1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3-11). He believed that he Spirit of the risen Lord spoke through Christian traditions, including his own teachings. Paul admonished his readers to hold fast the traditions they had received from him (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6) and he commended his readers for doing so (1 Corinthians 11:2; cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:1; Col. 2:6-7)."
​

(MB Thompson 'Tradition' in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, page 944)
As Paul himself wrote to his recent converts:

"I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, 'He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.'"
​

Galatians 1:22-23
Paul also wrote about how he submitted the gospel he was preaching to the apostles in Jerusalem. He is quite clear, it was the same gospel they had been preaching. The result of his submission was the approval of the other apostles.

"It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain."
​

Galatians 2:2
Here Paul concedes that he "submitted" his preaching to the apostles in Jerusalem for their approval (that it might not be "in vain"). The result was positive, as the next passage shows.

"But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
​

Galatians 2:5-9.
Here Paul records how his preaching was accepted by the apostles in Jerusalem ("gave to me ... the right hand of fellowship"). But, even more importantly perhaps, Paul acknowledges that his gospel was "just as" Peter's. The only difference was to whom the message was being given. For Paul, to the Gentiles. For Peter, to the Jews. The message was the same. As recorded in 1 Corinthians: Jesus Christ risen from the dead.
What all of these scriptures show is that Paul's own direct revelation was subordinate to established tradition.

"It could indeed be said that Paul's own claims to be an apostle, with a distinctive new or different emphasis in his gospel, had to be put to the same test and had to pass it if his apostleship and missionary work were not to be judged unacceptable variations of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the clear implication of Galatians 1-2, where Paul, having insisted on the independence of his apostolic authority from the Jerusalem apostles, nevertheless found it necessary to go up to Jerusalem to lay his gospel before the leading apostles, 'lest somehow I was running or had run in vain' (2.2.) Despite his confidence that he was called by Christ, Paul recognized the necessity that his claim to exceptional revelation (1.12) had to be tested and accepted by those who represented the temporal continuity with Jesus. Which also implies that Paul's repeated insistence that he was indeed an apostle was in effect a claim to belong to that body which he had responsibility to authenticate as well as to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:8-11). In the light of all this, it must be judged unlikely that Paul for one would have accepted any prophetic utterance as a word of Jesus simply because it was an inspired (prophetic) utterance."
​

(James DG Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, pages 190-91)
​

 

[AlexBP]

Second, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 and 15:1-5 Paul speaks of "receiving" and "delivering." This two step formula has a well established meaning in Judaism for the passing on of oral tradition. According to a leading Jewish scholar, "[h]e also discloses that the doctrines of Christianity were received and passed on--likely to be Greek translations of the two technical terms for the transmission of oral tradition within Pharisaism: kibel and masar." (Alan Se Galatians, Paul the Convert page 27; see also Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, page 229 "'Receive' and 'pass on' ... reflect standard terminology for the transmission of oral tradition").
C. Receiving the Eucharist
Although several leading scholars have recognized the significance of the two terms used here, it's usage in 1 Corinthians 11 has raised some questions:

"What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."
​

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
Although Paul uses the "received" and "delivered" language, he also says it was "received from the Lord." So, is it divine revelation or a pre-existing tradition? CK Barrett clearly frames the issue:

"In what sense did Paul receive this tradition from (apo) the Lord? Discussion has usually turned upon two possibilities. (a) The Lord himself was the origin of the tradition in the sense that he was the first link in a chain reaching from him to Paul. Eyewitnesses reported to others what the Lord had said and done, these repeated it to others again, and so in due course the tradition reached Paul, who had thus had it from the Lord not immediately but by unbroken transmission. (b) The Lord communicated immediately to Paul the truth in question, in the Damascus road experience, or in some similar visionary way. Paul received it from the Lord directly, without any kind of mediation."
​

(CK Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, page 265)
Leading Pauline scholars have concluded that Paul is still referring to established tradition, though one traced back directly to the Lord. That 1 Corinthians 15 had its origin with the Church is obvious. It is not a teaching of Jesus but a description of the early Church's central belief. With 1 Corinthians 11, we are dealing with a tradition explicitly established by Jesus himself. This explains the focus on the tradition's origins. Thus, 1 Corinthians 11 can be said to be received "from the Lord."
"By attributing the tradition directly to the Lord ('I received from the Lord'), Paul himself raises the question of whether he thought of it as a personal revelation from the Lord. But the fact that he feels no need to defend it as such (contrast Galatians 1.12) and uses the traditional terminology for receiving and passing on of tradition (as in 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3) points firmly to the conclusion that 11.23-26 was part of the traditions also mentioned in 11.2." (Dunn, op. cit., page 606 n. 37). According to FF Bruce, "ince it related what 'the Lord Jesus' did and said, it was a tradition ultimately 'received from the Lord' and accordingly delivered by Paul to his converts." (FF Bruce Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, page100).
Further supporting a reading that Paul was passing an existing tradition is that the Lord' Supper account is represented by two different traditions. The existence of two traditions shows that an origin with Paul is very unlikely. "[T]here were clearly two slightly (but significantly) different versions of the form of and wording used at the last supper among the churches. One we may call the Mark/Matthew version; the other was common to Paul and Luke. It should be fairly evident ... that neither can be completely derived from the other. The most obvious explanation of their otherwise striking closeness is that they come from a common source or tradition.... There need be little doubt, then, that Paul did indeed derive his founding tradition of the last supper from common tradition, and nothing that Paul says in 11.23-26 counts against the view that the tradition itself stemmed ultimately from the event now known as the last supper itself." (James DG Dunn, op. cit., pages 607-08). (For a breakdown of the similarities and differences between the two accounts is demonstrated here.
D. Other Pre-existing Creeds, Liturgies, and Psalms
Finally, Paul elsewhere relies on established Church creeds, liturgies, and psalms. Such creeds can be detected by established indicators, such as the four-time repeat of "that' in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, or "received and passed on" as in 1 Corinthians 11 and 15, and the atypical vocabulary of well-attested passages, the use of theological approaches otherwise uncommon--such as the suffering servant motif, and the use of rhetorical forms and structures (RP Martin, 'Creed' in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, page191). According to Thompson:

"Paul inherited a number of specifically Christian traditions, such as liturgical acclamation and confessions (1 Corinthians 12:3; Philemon 2:11; Romans 10:8-9), creedal formulations (1 Corinthians 15:3-5; Romans 1:3-4; 3:24-26; 4:24-25?; 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10?; 2 Timothy 2:8; cf. Romans 6:17) and hymns (Philemon 2:6-11; Ephesians 5:14; Colossians 1:15-20?). Paul's moral teaching or paraenesis (as found in, e.g., Romans 12:1-15:13; Galatians 5:1-6:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-5:22; Colossians 3:1-4:6) contains traditions from several sources, including Cynic and Stoic moralists, Jewish halakah, and dominicial teachings, but most likely also reflects early Christian catechetical material. The authority of the Spirit within himself and other Christians (1 Corinthians 2:13-13; 14:31, 37) offered yet another source of traditions. Prophecies were tested, apparently by their coherence with fundamental traditions received from Jesus, the OT and the prior witness of the Spirit in the Christian community (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21; 1 Corinthians 14:29)."
​

(Thompson, op. cit., page 944)
E. Summary of the Pauline Evidence
In sum, the idea that Paul did not make the transmission of oral tradition a part of his ministry is contradicted in many ways. "Paul's letters show us that the apostle valued and used traditions, including those he inherited from the OT, from the sayings of Jesus, and from the creeds, hymns and catechisms of early Christian communities. For Paul, the Spirit did not supplant traditions, but supplemented their application, guided their production, and spoke through their use." (MB Thompson 'Tradition' in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters page 943). Paul concedes that the gospel he preached--specifically Jesus' being killed, buried, and resurrected as a path to salvation--was the same one that the Church persecuted while he was not a Christian, and the same one that Peter preached to the Gentiles, that he laid it before the apostles and obtained their approval of it. Paul even uses typical pharisaic phraseology to refer to the oral transmission of the narrative of Jesus' death, resurrection, and appearances, as well as the Last Supper. And, throughout Paul's letters he uses pre-existing church traditions and creeds not of his own invention.
​

So those are the actual facts concerning where Paul received his knowledge about Jesus from. Given those facts, how can you expect us to take seriously the claim that thes "these references appear to be what Paul got from God the Father, not what was heard from Jesus on earth"?

 

[doubtingmerle]

First, look at some things we agree on: There were a group of men known as apostles who lived somewhere near Jerusalem and believed in "Christ". Peter, James and John, were prominent leaders of the group. They claimed to have seen Christ, and to have heard a voice from heaven declaring him as God's son. They called their Christ "Jesus". They probably practiced a eucharist and baptismal ritual. Paul spoke about them, and Mark writes of them in his book.

Sounds like the same person to me.

Interesting. All we know about the Q "Jesus" is found in Q. All we know about the Jersusalm apostles is a few references in Paul, and the books of 1 Peter and 2 Peter which may have been written by a fan of Peter (see post 243).

The Q teacher, if he existed, taught sayings similar to the Greek cynics. We see nothing about a eucharist meal for him, or the exalted claims of Christ that the Jerusalem apostles appear to be making. How are they the same person?

"Rather"? Do you mean an emanation of God can't walk the earth? Did you show that anywhere?

What is said is that he was never thought to have walked on earth with them. Again we don't know a lot of details about the Jerusalem apostles, but they don't appear to be talking about the buddy they went fishing with and traveled with around Palestine for 3 years.

Where else would someone who had human flesh walk? In the sky? Have you shown this?

Once more, the mailing address of the gods is not the point.

They could have seen Jesus as being somewhere in the firmament, in an alternate universe, on a remote island, in fairy tale land, on the moon, in the skies, in heaven, totally allegorical, etc.

I don't know the mailing address of the gods.

Tell me about this leader of the Q community. Did he preach many of the things in the Gospels?

That is a huge area of scholarly debate, and we certainly won't settle that here.

"Q" is the name we give to that collection of sayings that are included only in Matthew in Luke, are often nearly word for word identical, but are used in completely different contexts. It is commonly believed that all these sayings had been collected in one book, Q, that served as the source for Matthew and Luke. We do not know if there was a leader who was behind the original movement. If he existed, then he probably preached what is found in Q.

Did he perform healing miracles, like in the Gospels?

There is a passage in Q where disciples from John ask if "Jesus" is he that should come, and there is a response about the blind seeing, etc. That could have been metaphorical for healing of spiritiual blindness or it could have been later legend. (Or it could have been actual miracles, but I would be skeptical.)

Did he preach repentence, like in the Gospels? Did he preach a coming "kingdom of God", like in the Gospels?

Yes, I believe these are found in Q.

Did he get off-side the religious establishment of the day, like in the Gospels?

That is the controversy. Many of the teachings of Q teach tolerance and meekness. Then we find statements blasting the Pharisees as vipers and saying all kinds of nasty things about them. Some think the Q community was orignally peace loving, but as non-Hellenistic Jews attacked their beliefs, they became hostile and added the bitter condemnation of other Jews found in later versions of Q.

What in Mark was based on that leader of the Q community in Galilee?

We don't know if anything in Mark came from Q, but we know that both Matthew and Luke recognized the Jesus of Mark as the leader of Q, so we can asume that the Jesus of Mark was thought by many within the Q community to be a reference to the founder of their community.

No, that is not a warranted assumption. Here is a long article by Alvin Plantinga, called "Advice to Christian philosophers". How many times would you expect Plantinga to refer to the teachings of Jesus or Christ?

Where the apostles teach concepts that Jesus taught, one would expect them to refer at least some places to Jesus as their authority.

And besides, the issue here is that AlexBP insists that the quotes by Paul of Jesus are there. So when you excuse the fact that those quotes are not there, that does nothing to help AlexBP's case that the quotes are indeed there.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Based on the evidence provided, Alex wins by a landslide. Based on a very thouroug understanding of Pauline theology, Greek/Hebrew/early Christian culture and cultural philosophies, Alex also wins (id be surprised if Alex isn't an NT Wright fan).

I didn't know we were voting.

You are aware, of course, that any vote on the winner would be rigged? After all, by the rules of the forum, anybody who agrees with me is not allowed to jump on and say they agree. So if X people vote for AlexBP as the winner than the final tally will be X to 1 (or X+1 to 0, depending how I vote). By the rules of the forum, nobody is allowed to jump in and support my side.

Even third world countrys have a more democratic means of determining the winner.

Actually what I was asking for was a reference that says what AlexBP is saying. He keeps telling me that the Old Testament says that the Messiah must be the literal seed of David, but when I ask for a reference, he ends up in endless quotes of authorities and links that never give a reference in scripture that says what he claims. And when I ask him for examples of the many times that Paul clearly quotes Jesus, we again see endless quotes to authorities and links, but no actual verses that say what he claims. So voting that he is right doesn't resolve the issue. If he is right, where are the references that support his claims?

Can I take the fact that you jumped on, but did not mention a verse to support AlexBP's claim, that you could not find one either?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Even third world countrys have a more democratic means of determining the winner.

Yes, they shoot the opposing party. Maybe we should adopt that policy...

Actually was I was askinhg for was a reference that says what AlexBP is saying. He keeps telling me that the Old Testament says that the Messiah must be the literal seed of David, but when I ask for a reference, he ends up in endless quotes and links that never give a reference in scripture that says what he claims. And when I ask him for examples of the many times that Paul quotes Jesus, we again see endless quotes and links, but no actual verses that say what he claims. So voting that he is right doesn't resolve the issue. If he is right, where are the references that support his claims?

You'll never find any verse that says, "I Paul of Tarsus, quote Jesus of Nazareth here," or "The Messiah must be a literal flesh and blood person, thus saith the Torah/Mishnah/Midrash/Talmud/many other old books."

 

[AlexBP]

I
When I ask him for examples of the many times that Paul clearly quotes Jesus, we again see endless quotes to authorities and links, but no actual verses that say what he claims.

There are at least four instances in which Paul clearly quotes Jesus. They are Romans 14:14, 1 cor 7:10, 1 Cor 9:14, and 1 Cor 11:23-5. All of these verses are quotes, by Paul, of Jesus, and I have posted that list at least half a dozen times. Your response is that Paul isn't quoting Jesus but rather his direct revelations from the Father, but since for months I and others have explained ad nauseum why we know this to be untrue. (See posts 328, 363, 386, 387, and several dozen others. Alternately see this article, which you promised to respond to but never actually did.) Since, You've been unwilling to acknowledge those responses, you can scarcely hope to hide behind that tissue-thin excuse.

He keeps telling me that the Old Testament says that the Messiah must be the literal seed of David, but when I ask for a reference, he ends up in endless quotes of authorities and links that never give a reference in scripture that says what he claims.

I have given a reference for that as well; see post 288 and the link contained therein.

So in short, in both cases where you accuse me of not be able to give a reference for something, I've actually given a reference and you've just ignored it. You, on the other hand, have failed to give references for dozens of claims in your argument.

 

[AlexBP]

Interesting. All we know about the Q "Jesus" is found in Q. All we know about the Jersusalm apostles is a few references in Paul, and the books of 1 Peter and 2 Peter which may have been written by a fan of Peter (see post 243).

Actually we know a great deal about Jesus and about the Jerusalem Apostles because we're lucky enough to have four books about them, namely the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Nothing casts any doubt on their reliability, so we can trust them.

The Q teacher, if he existed, taught sayings similar to the Greek cynics. ... How are they the same person?

The "Q teacher" was Jesus. We know this because our two sources for Q material, the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew, both name him so scores of times. Matthew and Luke are not about two separate characters who both happen to be named Jesus Christ. They are each about one character named Jesus Christ. It is likey, though as I'm said far from certain, that they got their material from multiple sources, but obviously it's all meant to describe Jesus, since it says so very often.

Furthermore, if as a thought exercise we tried to reconstruct the life of Jesus based only on the Q material, we could find an enormous amount. We know exactly when and where he lived, because the Q material contains interaction between him and John the Baptist, both while John the Baptist was preaching and after John was arrested, via messengers. So that means that whoever wrote Q not only knew about the life of Jesus but where and when it took place. Q includes mentions of Bethsaida and other towns in the region, so whoever wrote Q knew not just that Jesus ministered in Palestine but exactly where within Galilee it happened. We know that John baptized Jesus. We know that Jesus had a group of disciples, who did in fact walk on earth with Jesus. We know that Jesus clashed repeatedly with the Pharisees. We know that he referred to his own death on a cross. We know that he was Jewish, but repeatedly crossed the lines and interacted with gentiles and with the outsiders in Jewish society. And we know an enormous amount about his teaching, which matches up very well with everything else we know from other sources.

Now you say this:

We see nothing about a eucharist meal for him, or the exalted claims of Christ that the Jerusalem apostles appear to be making.

This, needless to say, I have answered earlier in the thread.

As for the charge that Q does not contain things like Jesus' baptism, transfiguration, trial, and crucifixion, it's important to remember that we define the Q material as what is not in Mark. Since these events are in Mark, they are not part of the Q material. But they might have been in the Q document!
​

So unless you've found a copy of Q somewhere, you have no basis whatsoever for the claim that Q does not contain a eucharist meal, or that it does not contain "exalted claims". In fact, there is ample evidence that Q did contain a scene of Jesus being tried, crucified, resurrected, and reappearing, if you look at the similarities between Matthew And Luke that are not found in Mark in those scenes. For the details on that, you can read the essay 'A Passion Narrative for Q' by E. Franklin in the book New Testament Essays in Honor of John Ashton.

So with all that established, we now have two possibilities before us:

1. Jesus ministered in Galilee c. 30-33 AD, two different followers produced Mark and Q, and later Matthew and Luke both chose to write compilations including those two sources and others.

2. There were two different people named Jesus ministering in Galilee, particularly in Bethsaida and several other towns of the same name. Both were baptized by John the Baptist. Both gathered disciples. Both clashed with the pharisees. Both ministered to both Jews and Gentiles. Both taught in parables, involving common subjects such as land ownership, paying wages to workers, and comparing tax collectors to the righteous. Both predicted, while alive, that they would be crucified. And both were tried, crucified, and then rose from the dead. The life of one Jesus was recorded in Mark while the life of the other Jesus was recorded in Q. At some later date, Matthew and Luke both seperately came up with the highly unusual idea of combining the life stories of these two people seperately into single narratives.

Looking over those two possibilities, I think we can safely shave off #2 using Occam's Razor and pick #1 as the one that actually took place.

 

[AlexBP]

One can also argue that characters like Simon of Cyrene, Joseph of Armimathea, and Mary Magdalene are the invention of Mark, since nobody before Mark mentions them.

I've been intending to get back to the issue of archaeological evidence for a quite a while. Let me preface this by saying that the two books I've used most throughout this thread, Blomberg's Historical Reliability of the Gospels and Boyd and Eddy's Lord or Legend: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma, both have chapters about archaeology, and all the necessary references can be found in there.

Coffins bearing the names of Simon and Cyrene and his family have been found. Hence he is not an invention of Mark; the evidence for his existence is literally rock solid. A reference to the family of Mary Magdalene has been found as well. As for Joseph of Arimathea, I earlier stated that his tomb had been found but it seems I remembered that incorrectly. There is no physical evidence for him outside the gospels, but there is ample evidence for the existence of many other gospel characters including Caiphas, Jairus, and Pontius Pilate. Based on this pile of archaeological evidence for the existence of the characters, we can reject any claim that Mark or any other gospel is fictional. While someone today might write a novel that incorporates a fictional main character interacting with a bunch of real characters, no one in ancient Roman times did.

It is also worth mentioning the large amount of details concerning life in Palestine that the gospelers knew about. One good example is that skeptics used to claim that the Sea of Galilee never had any fishing boats in Jesus' time. However, archaeologists have now found a fishing boat of exactly the right size to hold thirteen people, and its shallow draft makes it quite realistic to believe that it would start to founder in a storm. You can actually see the 'Jesus Boat' in a musuem in Israel. Obviously we can't be certain that Jesus and the disciples actually sailed in this particular boat, but it's food for thought. There are a great deal of other details that suggest direct familiarity with Jerusalem and the towns of Galilee, burying and credible claims that the gospels were written by someone unfamililar with the area.

 

[AlexBP]

And so we come to this line of questioning: If Paul was worshipping the Jesus described in the gospels, then one would think he would base his teaching on the teaching of Jesus, that he would frequently give Jesus credit for the ideas he spreads, and that he would frequently quote Jesus.

Anything along those lines would indicate that Paul recognized the Jesus described in the gospels as an authority. We find nothing like that in Paul's writings.
...
The fact that there is overlap, but no attempt to ever credit Jesus for teaching something very similar is odd. Why wouldn't Paul want to credit Jesus as his source?

Note how you start this argument: "If Paul was worshipping the Jesus described in the gospels, then one would think..." (Emphasis mine.) One would think. Who, exactly, is one? It seems that "one" in this case refers only to yourself. Needless to say, you may choose how to think for yourself, but you don't have the authority to decide how everyone else should think.

After all, when a new movement is founded by a charismatic leader, everybody in the movement speaks of that leader after he is gone.

That's not true. For example, just because I happen to be familiar with it, I've read plenty of letters, articles, speeches, and such from early in the history of Mormonism that make no mention of Joseph Smith. I've read plenty of material from scientologists that makes no mention of L. Ron Hubbard.

We find nowhere that Paul distinctly credits the earthly Jesus of the gospels for anything he teaches.

First of all, as already mentioned, Paul does so. Secondly, if there are relatively few instances in which Paul specifically says that Jesus said a certain thing, that fits perfectly well with what we'd expect. You have to remember that your version of events was dreamed up by Earl Doherty a few years ago. In the times of Paul, everybody in his audience knew who Jesus was, the outline of Jesus' life, and a lot about Jesus' teachings. Hence there was no need for Paul to preface every single sentence with "Jesus said..." or "as Jesus taught...". Similarly, if I write something about Barack Obama today, I don't have to mention the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, educated in Indonesia, got a law Degree, and so forth, because everybody already knows these things. Likewise, if I write to somebody concerning Obama's healthcare bill, I don't have to write "Obama says that this bill wll provide health care for all Americans", because everybody already knows what Obama says about it. (If this analogy sounds familiar, it's because I already said the same thing before, and you just ignored it.)

Jesus was supposedly God incarnate, a man who walked around preaching, and stirring the hearts of his followers, so they spread the message all over the Roman Empire. One would think their message would be filled with refrerences to his words. Why doesn't Paul say something like:

Jesus said, "Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find."

As Jesus taught, loving God and loving others are the most important commandments.

When you pray, pray the way Jesus taught his disciples.
​

First of all, a while back you were making a big hullabaloo about the fact that there were no commas in ancient Greek. There were no quotations marks either, so that explains why Paul didn't use quotation marks.

Second, your entire argument has now boiled down to a complaint about the fact that Paul didn't use specifc wording when he was referencing the things that Jesus said. But once again, the answer is simply that he didn't need to, because everybody was familiar with what Jesus said. Remember that at this time, paper and ink were expensive, so you always tried to write as few words as possible. The hypothesis that everybody in the audience already knew the life story and teachings of Jesus perfectly accounts for the fact that Paul only put specific statements tying certain quotes to Jesus in a handful of places rather than in front of every single quote. Can you give us any reason why this hypothesis should not be adequate.

You could save yourself a lot of time by simply saying, "Paul quotes Jesus in Romans 20:76" or whatever reference you can find.

Paul quotes Jesus in Romans 14:14, 1 cor 7:10, 1 Cor 9:14, 1 Cor 11:23-5, and Acts 20:35.

 

[GakuseiDon]

As I mentioned, these 2 references to what the Lord said appear to be what Paul got from God the Father, not what was heard from Jesus on earth.

I thought you'd say something like that. So did Paul have a vision of God the Father, and not tell anyone that God the Father spoke to him? Or did Paul get this from scriptures? Because if it is the latter, then -- according to your reasoning -- shouldn't Paul have quoted where he got it from? Because the only alternative is that Paul didn't cite where he got it from, because everyone knew.

So which of the options above do you think it is?

 

[GakuseiDon]

We don't know if anything in Mark came from Q, but we know that both Matthew and Luke recognized the Jesus of Mark as the leader of Q, so we can asume that the Jesus of Mark was thought by many within the Q community to be a reference to the founder of their community.

Then, have you not perhaps found a candidate for the historical Jesus there, as leader of the Q community, the one who preached those things found in the Gospels, the miracle healer (whether metaphorical or not), the one who raised the hostility of the religious establishment of his time? Is this not at least a workable theory?

Where the apostles teach concepts that Jesus taught, one would expect them to refer at least some places to Jesus as their authority.

No. YOU would expect them to. But you have still to show that this expectation is warranted. I've given examples to you here and in my review to show that this expectation is not warranted, and it is anachronistic for you to expect this.

Surely you would have to grant the principle that it is possible that people in ancient times wrote differently to what we would expect of us today? And once you grant the possibility, wouldn't the next step be to investigate it? Have you done this? Has Doherty?

Read my review on the example of Tertullian's Ad nationes, and tell me why Tertullian never refers to "Jesus" or "Christ", why he 'hides' Christ's ministry on earth, why he talks about 'the name' being preached in the time of Augustus, then Tiberius and finally Nero, without even hinting about a Jesus being on earth in that time. Why did Tertullian write like that in your opinion, merle?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I thought you'd say something like that. So did Paul have a vision of God the Father, and not tell anyone that God the Father spoke to him? Or did Paul get this from scriptures?

I think Paul claimed both.

Because if it is the latter, then -- according to your reasoning -- shouldn't Paul have quoted where he got it from?

Sure, Paul often uses expressions like "as it is written" to show he is quoting.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Then, have you not perhaps found a candidate for the historical Jesus there, as leader of the Q community, the one who preached those things found in the Gospels, the miracle healer (whether metaphorical or not), the one who raised the hostility of the religious establishment of his time? Is this not at least a workable theory?

Sure, a Q leader is a likely candidate for the historical leader of a Q community. I doubt if the Q leader is the candidate for Paul's Jesus, for Paul seems to be unfamiliar with Q.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There are at least four instances in which Paul clearly quotes Jesus. They are Romans 14:14, 1 cor 7:10, 1 Cor 9:14, and 1 Cor 11:23-5. All of these verses are quotes, by Paul, of Jesus, and I have posted that list at least half a dozen times.

Rom 14:14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

​

The phrase "in the Lord Jesus" means Paul is speaking of a man?
What about the times that Paul and others say "in the spirit"? Does that mean that the Holy Spirit is a man? When we consider that there are later leaders who spoke of the Holy Spirit and Christ as equally Aeons of God, could it not be that Paul also thought they were both Aeons, and this is his expression for what that Aeon was teaching?

I Cor 7:10But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband

​

That certainly seems to me to be referring to God the Father. This is far from clear that Paul thought Jesus was the Jesus of the gospels.This certainly is not a clear quote of anything that ended up in the gospels.

I cor 9:14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

​

Actually in this verse we know where Paul got the teaching. Look up at verse 9 and you will see that Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4 as his source, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing". Paul says this is not about oxen, but he is clearly wrong. Look up the original. It is about oxen. Paul interprets this as meaning you should pay preachers. So "the Lord" here refers to the God of Deuteronomy.

I Cor 11:23-25 we have discussed many times before.

Your response is that Paul isn't quoting Jesus but rather his direct revelations from the Father, but since for months I and others have explained ad nauseum why we know this to be untrue. (See posts 328, 363, 386, 387, and several dozen others. Alternately see this article, which you promised to respond to but never actually did.)

Yes, let's leave it at that. I have shown why this is probably referring to God the Father. You have responded in post #328, etc. I went back and read post #328. As I expected, you didn't answer there. I guess I could reread all of the other posts you link to also, but let's just leave it at this. The lurker is welcome to page through all your links once again to see if he finds the answer there.

Since, You've been unwilling to acknowledge those responses, you can scarcely hope to hide behind that tissue-thin excuse.

I have tried to acknowledge your reponses, but there are dozens of your posts that I have not responded to, and never will be able to respond to, because I don't have the time to respond to everything posted here. And when I do repond, you respond with twice as much as what I write, and that only puts me further behind.

Did it never occur to you that others might actually have a life?

He keeps telling me that the Old Testament says that the Messiah must be the literal seed of David, but when I ask for a reference, he ends up in endless quotes of authorities and links that never give a reference in scripture that says what he claims.

I have given a reference for that as well; see post 288 and the link contained therein.

You do not give one scripture reference in post #288. Not one. So please, if you have posted a reference in the Old Testament that says that the Messiah will be the literal seed of David, what is that reference?

 

[GakuseiDon]

I think Paul claimed both.

Well, no. Not in the two passages in question.

Sure, Paul often uses expressions like "as it is written" to show he is quoting.

But he didn't in those two passages. So where did he get them from? Let's look at them again:

1 Cor 7
[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
[11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Compare with Mark 10:
[2] And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him.
...
[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Next:

1 Cor 9
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

That refers to the apostles preaching the gospels, and possibly related to Mark 6:
[7] And he called [unto him] the twelve [apostles], and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
[8] And commanded them that they should take nothing for [their] journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in [their] purse:

Looks like Paul DID know something from Q after all, I think. And keep in mind Galatians, where Paul claims he persecuted the churches of Christ in Judea, and ended up teaching the same faith as those he persecuted. Then again, Paul doesn't tell us, so maybe it was just a cheese fondue recipe or something.