Paul's belief in Christ - Lets get it STRAIGHT this time!

by lovelylil 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TD

  Although argument from silence is a logical fallacy when it is used deductively, it is still a valuable tool in the hands of source critics. Used inductively, it does not lead us to a proven conclusion, at least not syllogistically. Instead it is suggestive of a range of possibilities. IOW when the canonical epistles cry out for additional detail regarding Jesus' life and ministry, there are admittedly a number of possible explanations for the silence.

  When it comes to evaluating the various possible explanations, it's important to keep in mind that historians concern themselves with what probably happened. A classic example to illustrate this concerns a small religious group in the 1920's where the entire congregation of some forty individuals claimed to have seen their pastor actually walk on water.

  Was this a bona fide miracle? People can choose to believe or disbelieve as it pleases them, but an historian evaluating the account today with only the written recollections of people that have since passed away to go on, would almost certainly conclude that the incident was a trick of some sort. People don't walk on water today, so they probably didn't in the 1920's either.

  Of course this often puts historians and source critics at loggerheads with true believers....
• 

  Narkissos

  About the theory that Paul had a totally different idea of Jesus than the Apostles, and the gospels were written to challenge Paul's "Jesus", I totally disagree.

  If you are referring to my posts you misunderstood them.

  1. The "Apostles" and the "Gospels" are completely different issues. Paul does mention "apostles" that apparently had "a totally different idea of Jesus" from his, but I wouldn't identify them to Gospel writers.

  2. My point was that the Gospels were indeed referring in different ways to Paul's "Jesus" (and not the other way around), not challenging it. Actually only Matthew shows a rather systematic opposition to the Pauline theses, and this opposition doesn't focus on the identity of Jesus but rather the problematic of "salvation by faith and confession of the Lord Jesus vs. works of the Law" as developed in Romans (and possibly Galatians). Mark, Luke and John do "deviate" from Pauline theology but are not nearly as antagonistic to it.

  I don't know why you Q the authorship of the gospels. Although they may not be signed, most scholars agree on the authorship because the early church gave testimony of authorship.

  Which "scholars" are you referring to?
• 

  quietlyleaving

  hey narkissos - is Hyam Maccoby a conspiracy theorist or is he a kosher source of info?
• 

  IP_SEC

  hey narkissos - is Hyam Maccoby

  *ooo really wants to hear narks answer to this* thanks ql.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  hi ip

  have you come across him too in your investigtions re Paul and early christianity?
• 

  IP_SEC

  Yes ql. He made some interesting points debunking Pauls claim to have been a Jewish religious leader that stuck with me. But I dont know enough about Hebrew or Greek to really know how credible those claims are.

  Also, I find his hypo about the historical Jesus rings more true to me than other hypos out there. There were many Jesus like figures in the first cent. that it seems plausible.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  take a look at this piece. (hope I'm not sharing conspirist stuff)

  http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm

  How should we understand the relationship between Jesus and Paul? We shall be approaching this question not from the standpoint of faith, but from that of historians, who regard the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament as an important source of evidence requiring careful sifting and criticism, since their authors were propagating religious beliefs rather than conveying dispassionate historical information. We shall also be taking into account all relevant evidence from other sources, such as Josephus, the Talmud, the Church historians and the Gnostic writings

  We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament. This is, of course, not the whole story, for the Gospels are based on traditions and even written sources which go back to a time before the impact of Paul, and these early traditions and sources are not entirely obliterated in the final version and give valuable indications of what the story was like before Paulinist editors pulled it into final shape. However, the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus' sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul's very individual views, now became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament.
• 

  kwintestal

  Argument from silence, Kwin? Paul was writing letters to groups of Christians to address specific issues. He was not writing an account of Jesus' life.

  You may be right, however as there were no gospels written to date and Paul obviously had authority over the congregations (otherwise he wouldn't have been writing letters if he didn't) wouldn't his mentioning at least one "good deed" that Jesus did been the norm? Why did he mention his birth, death and resurrection if he was just addressing specific issues? Did those have anything to do with the issues he was addressing? No more then him healing lepers or the blind, or his teachings on treating your neighbour as yourself, forgiveness and so on. Paul had no idea of these things or he would have used them to his (and the churches) advantage to increase the number of believers.

  Didn't Paul say that he never let an opportunity go by where he didn't preach? I'd say that he let several get by him by not mentioning Jesus' teachings and miracles.

  Anyway, I don't want to argue as there's no way of knowing either way for sure, we just have what we individually believe. I just wanted to express my opinion

  Kwin
• 

  lovelylil

  Narkissos,

  I am Sorry I misunderstood your post.

  About the other "theories" about Paul and Jesus some have posted here, sorry I just do not agree. Believe me I have looked into these theories before and they just do not stand up. First of all they are ideas that are being advanced much later than the original writings of the NT were completed, so they are conjecture at best.

  Also, for us believers, we understand the gospel accounts and Paul's letters perfectly. And can see how the whole record of Jesus in the NT is in harmony. Since the NT is primarily a "book" of faith for Christians, we do not need outsiders to interpret it for us.

  Peace, Lilly
• 

  Narkissos

  Yes Maccoby is very interesting, but in many ways he stands about the opposite side of the spectrum from the "mythicists" lovelylil referred to in her OP, in that he does postulate a "historical Jesus" which is neither the "Christ" of Paul nor the (Pauline-influenced) Gospels' Jesus. As in many similar theses (from the conservative Meier to the inflammatory Eisenman), sifting the Gospels from Pauline- or post-Pauline-influenced material would yield the elements for reconstructing a "historical Jesus"... however, the Gospels may have had other reasons than "history" (theological or literary for instance) to deviate from the Pauline and post-Pauline pattern. The real touchstone of such theses, I feel, is the (scarce) evidence for the antiquity of a Jewish Palestinian "Jesus" movement prior to and independent from Hellenistic Christianity and Paulinism. James the Just is definitely a central figure, as is John the Baptist, but their NT connection(s) to Jesus might be artificial, too...