MattMorales wrote:Paul preaching the Cosmic Christ over the Galilean preacher is nothing new in NT studies. This has no bearing on the historicity of said preacher.
Correct in my opinion.
Pauls Jesus had died and was in heaven. He did not know the earthly Jesus at all and thus had nothing to comment on.
One point that should be obvious but is overlooked. Paul wanted to be a real disciple in a bad way, and it bothers him that he was not.
Blood wrote:Pauline theology is starting to actually kind of make sense. The bad news for Ehrman is that it proves Carrier's thesis, not his, is the correct one.
Methinks its the other way around....
Ehrman, unlike Carrier, has not jettisoned the gospel Jesus i.e. Ehrman still has his apocalyptic prophet. Ehrman still upholds a historical core to the gospel story. Yes, one can debate what that historical core is - but acknowledging it rather than denying it has more potential to move forward the historicist vs ahistoricist debate over the gospel Jesus.
Thus, Ehrman might well, with this new book on Christology, be able to move the debate forward. Carrier has first to backtrack out of the purely imaginative mythicism theory he has created. The gospel story, Carrier notwithstanding, cannot so easily be side-lined.
There is no doubt at all that there is a is a mythical Jesus, and we already know where to find him. My point is simply that the plausible Jesus of the gospels is not that figure. This is where the process begins. http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/20 ... out-jesus/
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
MattMorales wrote:
Paul preaching the Cosmic Christ over the Galilean preacher is nothing new in NT studies. This has no bearing on the historicity of said preacher. It's just now Ehrman can classify this Christ as an angel rather than just a big question mark. We knew he was highly exalted in Paul's mind but also subservient to and not fully God, as John's Gospel implies. Remember, Enoch was thought to be a human being before he was exalted to angelic status. You can have it both ways.
Indeed - well worth repeating: "You can have it both ways".
This, to my mind, is where Carrier' mythicist theory falls flat on its face. To make a choice between the Pauline Christ figure and the figure of Jesus in the gospel story is nonsensical. Both stories have their own reason for being created. Paul' celestial christ figure does not negate the relevance of the gospel Jesus figure. The gospel Jesus figure does not negate the relevance of the Pauline celestial christ figure. Two stories, two Jesus figures - yep, maybe Ehrman will seek to develop his ideas along these two lines - interesting times might then be ahead.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Blood wrote:Pauline theology is starting to actually kind of make sense. The bad news for Ehrman is that it proves Carrier's thesis, not his, is the correct one.
I think these debates emphasis what others have said - Pauline theology is different to the Synoptics, and they likely have different origins.
It seems Ehrman is seeing a celestial/angelic Jesus in the Pauline texts; as have others.
It creates problems for the [orthodox(?)] doctrine that Paul founded or cemented Christianity on the basis of preaching Jesus the resurrected good-guy: esp. if Jesus was already a heavenly being, and only an angel.
MattMorales wrote:Paul preaching the Cosmic Christ over the Galilean preacher is nothing new in NT studies. This has no bearing on the historicity of said preacher. It's just now Ehrman can classify this Christ as an angel rather than just a big question mark. We knew he was highly exalted in Paul's mind but also subservient to and not fully God, as John's Gospel implies.
Erhman, as a well known theologian, emphasizing the Pauline Christ could be a different entity to the Gospels' Jesus, blows open apologetic doctrine of the uniformity of the central character of the NT- 'Jesus Christ'; and this fractures the notion that Paul started Christianity as a belief in Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
maryhelena wrote: To make a choice between the Pauline Christ figure and the figure of Jesus in the gospel story is nonsensical. Both stories have their own reason for being created. Paul' celestial christ figure does not negate the relevance of the gospel Jesus figure. The gospel Jesus figure does not negate the relevance of the Pauline celestial christ figure. Two stories, two Jesus figures - yep, maybe Ehrman will seek to develop his ideas along these two lines - interesting times might then be ahead.
Two stories, two savior or Christ figures; highly likely. Maybe even more background-stories or community histories are behind the NT, and maybe/probably more Christs or saviors.
If separate backgrounds, 'negating' doesn't come into it: 'negating' is a non-issue.
Nor is there a need for choice: just a need to try to investigate the components backgrounds to see if their origins can be elucidated.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Woah there! Christs are some form of priest, angel. Saviours are Joshuas or Jesuses! So that is another category! Add in "Lord"!
And we have a wondrous three part chimera, a Lord Jesus Christ!
And the permutations very quickly increase exponentially!
"a thing of immortal make, not human, lion-fronted and snake behind, a goat in the middle,[3] and snorting out the breath of the terrible flame of bright fire".[4]
maryhelena wrote: To make a choice between the Pauline Christ figure and the figure of Jesus in the gospel story is nonsensical. Both stories have their own reason for being created. Paul' celestial christ figure does not negate the relevance of the gospel Jesus figure. The gospel Jesus figure does not negate the relevance of the Pauline celestial christ figure. Two stories, two Jesus figures - yep, maybe Ehrman will seek to develop his ideas along these two lines - interesting times might then be ahead.
Two stories, two savior or Christ figures; highly likely. Maybe even more background-stories or community histories are behind the NT, and maybe/probably more Christs or saviors.
If separate backgrounds, 'negating' doesn't come into it: 'negating' is a non-issue.
Nor is there a need for choice: just a need to try to investigate the components backgrounds to see if their origins can be elucidated.
Indeed.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
