Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

[Giuseppe]

It appears to me that you was going to interpret 2 Cor 5:16:

"Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

...as a justification for Paul's indifference about an earthly Jesus, which would make stronger your case for the absence of references to crucifixion in Acts's Paul's trial as expected by a historicist author.

But dr. Carrier points out that Paul, in 2 Cor 5:16, refers to "our living no longer 'according to the flesh' but according to the spirit", not at all to a Jesus lived in the flesh from the seed of David.

Hence, it appears to me that you are unable to make a case, based on Paul only, for the apostle being indifferent about the crucifixion of Jesus, when in Acts the crucifixion itself of Jesus is not mentioned, during the Paul's trial.

"they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive."

where is the crucifixion, here ?

[davidmartin]

1. Before reviewing, set your expectations about how much information about the historical Jesus you'd expect to see in each epistle
2. Review the epistle to see if your expectations are met

The key moment is in Galatians. Paul denies previously hanging around with the primordial Christians. Who does he deny it to?
It makes no sense if the person he is denying it to is himself a primordial Christian. It's absurd
Therefore the primordial Christians are remote and distanced in time and space by the time of Paul, maybe by a decade or so. A lot of water has already flowed under the bridge

If that distance exists then there is no reason for Paul to leverage anything of the historical Jesus if he didn't need to. His gospel works without it
So my expectations are fully met
All Paul needs is a concept of Christ and he's home free to say anything he likes
But this attempt to strip away the historical Jesus failed. People were curious. The gospels (a previously heretical genre - 'Jewish myths') were more popular among the great unwashed masses than Paul bargained for. So they came out with their own ones in the end

[GakuseiDon]

But dr. Carrier points out that Paul, in 2 Cor 5:16, refers to "our living no longer 'according to the flesh' but according to the spirit", not at all to a Jesus lived in the flesh from the seed of David.

No, the text is "we have known Christ according to the flesh":

2 Cor 5:16: "Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

"We have known Christ according to the flesh". Assuming that Paul is referring to (all) Christians' flesh there. Can you explain Carrier's response? Paul believes that Christ was a man who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and became a living-giving spirit after death. When the Christians knew Christ according to [all Christian's] flesh, what did Christians know? And how do Christians no longer know Christ? Please spell out Carrier's response, as you understand it.

Hence, it appears to me that you are unable to make a case, based on Paul only, for the apostle being indifferent about the crucifixion of Jesus

That's nothing like I said. I was talking about Jesus's life. The text says that Jesus came in the likeness of a man, a servant, "of no reputation" (emptied himself). It doesn't sound like a remarkable life to me. Maybe he worked at the ancient equivalent of Walmart before crucifixion.

when in Acts the crucifixion itself of Jesus is not mentioned, during the Paul's trial.

"they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive."

where is the crucifixion, here ?

Well, yes! Where is it? That's MY point. Why did this HISTORICIST writer leave it out of Paul's trial, in your opinion? The author refers to Jesus being crucified a few times earlier in Acts. Did his source not have Paul talk about the crucifixion at the trial, then? What does that mean, in your opinion?

[davidmartin]

that's what i mean, anyone who knew some historical guy would see this shit about 'being of no reputation and emptying himself' as a load of bullshit. it's bullshit. the gospels confirm that it is bullshit. it is bullshit

[Giuseppe]

But dr. Carrier points out that Paul, in 2 Cor 5:16, refers to "our living no longer 'according to the flesh' but according to the spirit", not at all to a Jesus lived in the flesh from the seed of David.

No, the text is "we have known Christ according to the flesh"

well, the error is precisely that, in thinking that there Paul would be talking about a Christ "according to flesh" who would be known by the Christians.

Carrier in short:

In the original Greek, "According to flesh" doesn't refer to Christ, but to action of knowledge, to the verb "we have known".

Hence you can't use 2 Cor 5:16 as saying: "we don't care now about the human Jesus but about the risen Christ". Therefore the following rg price's quote describes a genuine FACT :

There is zero evidence of that. In fact, as soon as the Gospels came out, all that anyone was interested in was Jesus the man. There is nothing in the pre-Gospel writings that says, "We know Jesus to have been a man who provided wise teachings to us, but he is now in heaven, and now that he has been killed and gone to heaven our interest is in his heavenly nature."

Just as it is a FACT that:

In the post-Gospel world, the unjust execution of Jesus at the hands of the Jews was at THE HEART of Christian theology. It was the center of the universe. It was the single most important element of the entire story! The unjust execution of Jesus at the hands of the Jews was both in doubt (did they really do it?) and central to explaining why the favor of the Lord had been transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles. So now here is Paul, "in the Lion's den", and we're presented with confused lambs?

Note how a false "Paul" totally invented by a historicist author would sound:

In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,

(1 Timothy 6:13)

[GakuseiDon]

Carrier in short:

In the original Greek, "According to flesh" doesn't refer to Christ, but to action of knowledge, to the verb "we have known".

Yes, I've already granted that. So it is "Even though we have known Christ according to the [our own human Christian] flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

So what does it mean???

Remember that Paul believes that Christ was a man who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and became a living-giving spirit after death.

[GakuseiDon]

that's what i mean, anyone who knew some historical guy would see this shit about 'being of no reputation and emptying himself' as a load of bullshit. it's bullshit. the gospels confirm that it is bullshit. it is bullshit

Well, maybe not. This is just speculation by someone who has no understanding of the original languages and hasn't studied the texts in anything other than English (namely, me!) so take it for what it's worth; but Paul called Jesus "the seed of David". Paul might have thought that this gave Jesus the authority to come to earth and wield real earthly power as the rightful earthly King of the Jews. Instead, Jesus came as an ordinary person "like a servant". This might include someone like we see in the Gospel of Mark; walking around with large crowds following, performing miracles. But he's someone without any of the real earthly power that Paul thought Jesus could have had if he'd wanted.

[John2]

Acts here is a glossing over of what appears in Galatians. But even this fabrication can't be construed as "continuity" with this fictionalized Jerusalem Church. Anyway Steven we've strayed way off the OP

This is a tangent that resulted from my response to something you said on this thread, and while I considered starting a new one for the topic, it seems "Acts-y" enough to let it run its course in this one (and if you have no response to this post then that's fine with me).

I think Acts is glossing over Galatians too, but I think this is due to the author wanting to put Christian history in the best light. And at the end of the day, Jewish Christians (including Paul) are called Nazarenes and observe the Torah in Acts, and this is in keeping with the Nazarene position and with what Paul says in 1 Cor. 9:20:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Perhaps Paul's reproval by those sent from James in Galatians and by James in his letter had some effect on him and this is the side of him that Acts wanted to highlight. As long as he was willing to at least pretend to be Torah observant then there was no need to bring up what happened in Antioch, since the incident was about the necessity of Jewish Torah observance. And in any event, Acts is quite open about the issue that was brought up there and sides with the Nazarene position.

You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs ...

Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the law.

[Secret Alias]

So you think that Paul is still an observant Jew ... in spite of what he says about the Law in Galatians.

[John2]

So you think that Paul is still an observant Jew ... in spite of what he says about the Law in Galatians.

He says he pretended to be, yes.