Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:20 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:18 pm
So, who was that historical Jesus? Paul describes him as humble, coming as a servant, obedient unto death. We see this theme in other early literature

An allusion to the scriptures : Isaiah 53.

If an ancient author said that Inanna, was obedient unto death and we know that he had Isaiah 53 in mind because he thought that Inanna was the character described in this passage of Isaiah, would this be a proof that Inanna had existed ?

I'm not using it as proof of existence, but rather evidence towards what Paul thought about Jesus. If an ancient author said that Inanna was obedient unto death and we know that he had Isaiah 53 in mind, do you think that the ancient author thought that Inanna was obedient unto death?

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:36 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm What I thought I'd do is explain why I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the earliest layer of Christian texts (letters by Paul and gMark) and who that historical Jesus probably was.

I haven't read the whole post yet, but right away, if nothing else, I do appreciate the bold and direct approach!

Thanks! I appreciate people putting out their theories on this board. I feel it is easy for me to just sit back and take potshots at them. So I'm putting out my theory, and invite people to fire away!

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:54 pmI find no value in such a useless notion. If others do - that's their choice. It matters nothing to me what people believe. My interest is a historical search for the roots of early christianity - I find no historical worth in a nobody Jesus.

Fair enough. Still, I can't see how a nobody Jesus doesn't have an impact in a historical search for the roots of early Christianity. At the least, it helps to tell us where NOT to search.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:11 am

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:20 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:18 pm
So, who was that historical Jesus? Paul describes him as humble, coming as a servant, obedient unto death. We see this theme in other early literature

An allusion to the scriptures : Isaiah 53.

If an ancient author said that Inanna, was obedient unto death and we know that he had Isaiah 53 in mind because he thought that Inanna was the character described in this passage of Isaiah, would this be a proof that Inanna had existed ?

I'm not using it as proof of existence, but rather evidence towards what Paul thought about Jesus.

And the historical evidence for NT Paul is ????

Methinks your whole approach to the search for early christian origins is circular...around and around with assumptions. After all your years on these forums I can't fathom how you can imagine your approach can contribute anything of value. It's a dead-end, a cul-de-sac, a brick wall.

However, what a historicist approach to the gospel Jesus does do, historicists themselves notwithstanding, is it's desire to retain a foothold on terra-firma and not be caught away by Paul's philosophical musings. History is primary - that's the shift in focus the historicists need - rather than their fixation upon a gospel figure Jesus they assume to be historical.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:18 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:54 pmI find no value in such a useless notion. If others do - that's their choice. It matters nothing to me what people believe. My interest is a historical search for the roots of early christianity - I find no historical worth in a nobody Jesus.

Fair enough. Still, I can't see how a nobody Jesus doesn't have an impact in a historical search for the roots of early Christianity. At the least, it helps to tell us where NOT to search.

Yep, a nobody Jesus tells you not to waste your time ....

maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:41 amYep, a nobody Jesus tells you not to waste your time ....

True, but it's a heck of a lot of fun to speculate! A world of fan fiction, in fact. A solid established fact -- one that was incontrovertible! -- about something said or done by Jesus would be a Christian theologian's worst nightmare.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:13 am

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:36 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm What I thought I'd do is explain why I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the earliest layer of Christian texts (letters by Paul and gMark) and who that historical Jesus probably was.

I haven't read the whole post yet, but right away, if nothing else, I do appreciate the bold and direct approach!

Thanks! I appreciate people putting out their theories on this board. I feel it is easy for me to just sit back and take potshots at them. So I'm putting out my theory, and invite people to fire away!

I would really appreciate a very first potshot of you at mine, G'Don

maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:37 am

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:11 am

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:20 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:18 pm
So, who was that historical Jesus? Paul describes him as humble, coming as a servant, obedient unto death. We see this theme in other early literature

An allusion to the scriptures : Isaiah 53.

If an ancient author said that Inanna, was obedient unto death and we know that he had Isaiah 53 in mind because he thought that Inanna was the character described in this passage of Isaiah, would this be a proof that Inanna had existed ?

I'm not using it as proof of existence, but rather evidence towards what Paul thought about Jesus.

And the historical evidence for NT Paul is ????

Methinks your whole approach to the search for early christian origins is circular...around and around with assumptions. After all your years on these forums I can't fathom how you can imagine your approach can contribute anything of value. It's a dead-end, a cul-de-sac, a brick wall.

However, what a historicist approach to the gospel Jesus does do, historicists themselves notwithstanding, is it's desire to retain a foothold on terra-firma and not be caught away by Paul's philosophical musings. History is primary - that's the shift in focus the historicists need - rather than their fixation upon a gospel figure Jesus they assume to be historical.

I'm going to add my voice to yours on this Mary. My recent experiment with Paul has resulted in my concluding that, except for a totally unrelated to XCanity historical letter writer in 1 Cor, the rest of the Pauline material seems to be composed by multiple authors and reliant on the Gospel stories and Acts.

All in all, 'Paul' seems to be a fictional construct designed to support an equally fictional IC.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:31 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:37 am

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:11 am

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:20 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:18 pm
So, who was that historical Jesus? Paul describes him as humble, coming as a servant, obedient unto death. We see this theme in other early literature

An allusion to the scriptures : Isaiah 53.

If an ancient author said that Inanna, was obedient unto death and we know that he had Isaiah 53 in mind because he thought that Inanna was the character described in this passage of Isaiah, would this be a proof that Inanna had existed ?

I'm not using it as proof of existence, but rather evidence towards what Paul thought about Jesus.

And the historical evidence for NT Paul is ????

Methinks your whole approach to the search for early christian origins is circular...around and around with assumptions. After all your years on these forums I can't fathom how you can imagine your approach can contribute anything of value. It's a dead-end, a cul-de-sac, a brick wall.

However, what a historicist approach to the gospel Jesus does do, historicists themselves notwithstanding, is it's desire to retain a foothold on terra-firma and not be caught away by Paul's philosophical musings. History is primary - that's the shift in focus the historicists need - rather than their fixation upon a gospel figure Jesus they assume to be historical.

I'm going to add my voice to yours on this Mary. My recent experiment with Paul has resulted in my concluding that, except for a totally unrelated to XCanity historical letter writer in 1 Cor, the rest of the Pauline material seems to be composed by multiple authors and reliant on the Gospel stories and Acts.

All in all, 'Paul' seems to be a fictional construct designed to support an equally fictional IC.

Yep, the paper apostle.......

Basically we need to cut the story interpretations and deal with the historical context in which the NT story is set. That context runs from Herod to Tiberius. 40 b.c. to 37 ce, 77 years - my - how the NT writers loved that number 7 (Philo's Logos movements). And that old chestnut the TF and Pilate ? Context for Pilate in 19 c.e. and Pilate in 26 c.e. - a 7 year time period in which Acts of Pilate places it's crucifixion story in 21 c.e. Josephus playing the numbers game as well as any gospel writer. Why 26 c.e. ? Seems Josephus had a thing for Daniel's 70 weeks of years. 26 c.e. being 490 years back to 465/464 b.c. - the first year of Artaxerxes I. Methinks not some arbitrary meaningless attempt at ambiguity re dating Pilate for Josephus. Follow the money as they say - in this case simply follow the numbers......or as Philo would have it - follow the moving Logos.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pmThe insistence that a historical Jesus has to in some way be like the Gospel Jesus is a strawman (unless arguing against someone who is actually making that claim).

in my (and probably Doherty's) opinion the paradox is that you (!) are really that "someone who is actually making that claim", i.e. that "a historical Jesus has to in some way be like the Gospel Jesus", insofar you write, only some row after:

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pmI think the story of Jesus objecting to practices at the Temple is as plausible as any. He was complaining that the Jewish elite were not adhering to the Law and therefore not adhering to God in some way.

I don't see in Paul evidence of a such Jesus's objecting to Temple, etc. Despite of the fact that I see evidence, in Paul, of a lot of places (I would call them "induction places") where he would have appealed to an anti-Temple Jesus in order to make his point, contra factum that he didn't.

I don't see how can you infer that Gospel-based Jesus from Paul. As a rule, I don't see in Paul a Gospel-based Jesus, for each possible Gospel-based Jesus.

That is also the reason I have some difficulty in accepting Markan priority, since the first person in the world who would have rejected "another Jesus" was just Paul, hence how could a true paulinist (=presuming he was "Mark") break the diktat of the his own apostle Paul?