Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[toejam]

^The issue is not whether Paul's epistles prove a historical Jesus, but whether Paul believed Jesus to have been born/lived/crucified here on Earth or in a heavenly realm. This question is as much about the validity of the Carrier/Doherty hypothesis as much as it is about the validity of other hypotheses (historicist or mythicist).

[bcedaifu]

The issue is not whether Paul's epistles prove a historical Jesus, but whether Paul believed ....

Sorry to disagree so fundamentally.

Can you assert what Tolstoy "believed" about xyz, based on reading 'War and Peace'?

You don't know (and neither does anyone else) anything about 'Paul'. Do you know what Bernard Madoff "believed", as he took the millions of dollars from donors to his church? How did 'Paul' get his wealth, the funds needed to travel about, buying papyrus, paying for food and lodging and assistance en route to the various cities of the Roman Empire?

How did he manage to travel along Roman military highways, without official permission from the government? Were there no conflicts within the empire, in those days? Oh, that's right, we don't know when "those days" were, do we?

Toejam, do you "know" whether Lady Murasaki, (who, exceptionally among Japanese women, taught Chinese), thought highly of Li Bai, or had been contemptuous of his drunkenness? Can you read Tales of Genji and then conclude something, anything, about her thoughts, say, for example, on women's health issues?

At least we know who Li Bai and Lady Murasaki were, when they lived, their financial circumstances, their family, and so on....Can you express the same certitude, for 'Paul', who supposedly lived five hundred years before Li Bai, and seven hundred years after KongZi had written the Analects?

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

Jubilees 15:24-27 informs us that Second Temple Jews did indeed believe that God created spirit bodies in a circumcised state. Indeed, the same book explains that the reason Jews are circumcised is to emulate in their bodies the angels of the presence.

Yes, but did Paul read Jubilees? Paul only quoted OT scriptures which became part of the canon.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Doubtful Historicities : 2
4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8).

Why doubtful historicity: Why would a human being on earth ministering the Jews be less likely than an heavenly deity doing it from heaven?
Why being poor and humble is more likely referring to be in heaven than on earth?
Obviously Kapyong, you did not read my piece on "poor", "in poverty":
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p24.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Which is exactly how the Ascension of Isaiah has it - Jesus is given a body ('garments') appropriate to each level - in the lower heavens of the Air Beneath the Moon he is given the body that is in the 'likeness of men' - the Jewish body of the circumcision.

As to how he would appear - he would SEEM normal - doesn't Docetic mean 'seems' ?

Gosh, mythicists like Doherty & Carrier send the gospels and Acts in the thrash bin but they consider highly corrupted "Ascension of Isaiah", most likely christianized after the gospels, as their gospel, quasi-canonical.
BTW, when traveling below the firmament, Jesus is given a body like the angels of the air, not in the "likeness of men".
Here my piece on "Ascension of Isaiah":
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p73.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

I don't think it's far fetched at all, Paul states specifically that the women are allegories - what more do you want ?

No, Paul introduced the women as real ones before starting his allegory (using these two women in it). Paul, as a Jew, was not about considering biblical persons described being human in the past as being allegorical.

[Bernard Muller]

Gday Bernard,

Bernard Muller wrote:
And that makes a lot of sense!!! And we have no evidence a passage from 2 Samuel 7 was interpreted as such by anyone. Even Carrier admits it requires peshering and imagination to arrive at that conclusion:
Cordially, Bernard

Well, the passage in question :

When your days are done, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your sperm after you, which shall come from your belly, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build for me a house in my name, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son (2 Samuel 7.12-I4a).

Talks about raising up David's sperm after he has gone to make a new King who is his son - this sounds exactly like what Carrier says - that later on, at the appropriate juncture God would raise up a new King , a new son-of-God, from the sperm of David. This is not conjecture, it's right there in the text.

This could all happen in heaven, because God moved in heaven, and god-men came from heaven - so this sperm-bank could easily exist in heaven ready to impregnate the woman above and have a new son-of-god.

Kapyong

I certainly know about the passage and its context: "you" refers to David, "his" refers to Solomon, and the "throne" refers to the Davidic dynasty.
As far as I know, only Carrier used 2 Samuel 7 for his interpretation.
My piece on Carrier's theory:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p74.htm
At the end of my blog post, I quoted the passage from OHJ.

In order to see what Carrier saw in that passage, it has to be "read like a pesher". And Carrier goes on "It would not be unimaginable that God could maintain a cosmic sperm bank" and conclude "And since scripture required the messiah to be Davidic, anyone who started with the cosmic doctrine inherent in minimal mythicism would have had to imagine something of this kind."

Even Carrier is not putting too much weight on that passage, but that's his main "evidence" for that cosmic Jesus being from the seed of David.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

So, the cosmic Jesus would get his body from a David's sperm and, according to Carrier OHJ, pp577-582, On Born of Woman', from the allegorical Hagar: "Jesus was momentarily born to the allegorical Hagar"
But that Hagar is considered a real woman by Jews and certainly Paul. That complicates things.
Anyway it looks that Hagar (the real one or the allegorical one) had to be preserved alive in heaven (resurrected or raptured!) in order to be available for Jesus' incarnation from that sperm of David that God preserved for a millennium.
Later, that allegorical woman is replaced by the old covenant: "So the 'woman' here is simply the old covenant, not an actual person."
So now we would have for Gal 4:4, with Carrier's "corrections": "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of the old covenant, made under the law,"
or going to Carrier's first interpretation: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of the allegorical Hagar, made under the law,"

Just musing and having fun.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

to Neil,

Jubilees 15:24-27 informs us that Second Temple Jews did indeed believe that God created spirit bodies in a circumcised state. Indeed, the same book explains that the reason Jews are circumcised is to emulate in their bodies the angels of the presence.

Yes, but did Paul read Jubilees? Paul only quoted OT scriptures which became part of the canon.

Cordially, Bernard

You miss my point. Your suggestion that it is simply ludicrous to imagine a heavenly being with a Jewish [male] body is a modern way of thinking. Jubilees demonstrates that it was quite conceivable in the days of Paul.

(Besides, as you no doubt know, Paul is not likely to quote a text that is arguing the necessity for Jewish males to be circumcised in the midst of more general arguments for the importance of the correct observance of days, times, seasons, etc.)

[neilgodfrey]

The issue is not whether Paul's epistles prove a historical Jesus, but whether Paul believed ....

Sorry to disagree so fundamentally.

Can you assert what Tolstoy "believed" about xyz, based on reading 'War and Peace'?

You don't know (and neither does anyone else) anything about 'Paul'. Do you know what Bernard Madoff "believed", as he took the millions of dollars from donors to his church? How did 'Paul' get his wealth, the funds needed to travel about, buying papyrus, paying for food and lodging and assistance en route to the various cities of the Roman Empire?

How did he manage to travel along Roman military highways, without official permission from the government? Were there no conflicts within the empire, in those days? Oh, that's right, we don't know when "those days" were, do we?

Toejam, do you "know" whether Lady Murasaki, (who, exceptionally among Japanese women, taught Chinese), thought highly of Li Bai, or had been contemptuous of his drunkenness? Can you read Tales of Genji and then conclude something, anything, about her thoughts, say, for example, on women's health issues?

At least we know who Li Bai and Lady Murasaki were, when they lived, their financial circumstances, their family, and so on....Can you express the same certitude, for 'Paul', who supposedly lived five hundred years before Li Bai, and seven hundred years after KongZi had written the Analects?

In other words, all writings attributed to Paul must be set aside when considering the question of the origins of Christianity.

Or in other words, all knowledge and arguments in this field must be tentative.

Curiously you have no similar hesitation in knowing so precisely and thoroughly the mind and motives of your fellow anonymous persona here, spin.