Christ on earth in the epistles

[historia]

The earliest Christians, the epistle writers, worshipped a Christ figure that had never been on earth before but were promised by the likes of Paul that he would come soon.

Is this claim correct?

[historia]

Paul reveals his sources, he says he got his information about Christ by reading his ancient scriptures and he had visions of Christ, and that he got no information from other people. Does Paul describe a human being, an historical figure?

That's not exactly what Paul says. Instead he says:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

The "gospel" and "information about Jesus" are not the same thing, as can be illustrated by the very next thing Paul says after this:

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.

Clearly, if Paul persecuted the early Christians prior to his conversion, then he must have known something about their beliefs to find them objectionable. Since the defining characteristic of the early Christians -- the thing that set them apart from other Jews -- was their beliefs about Jesus, we must surely conclude that Paul knew what Christians believed about Jesus prior to his own vision. To imagine otherwise just beggars belief.

So, while Paul can claim that "his gospel" -- likely his particular message about Jesus to the Gentiles -- came to him from a revelation, it is running well past the data to assert, as you have here, that Paul didn't get any information about Jesus from other Christians, as surely he did.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to historia in post #21]

Galatians 1:11-12

11For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. [NASB]

The following is from Earl Doherty's website, the Jesus Puzzle, the bold emphasis is mine https://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/silgals.htm


Nothing could be more clearly stated. Paul has arrived at his knowledge and doctrine of the Christ he preaches through personal revelation. He denies receiving anything from other men, by teaching, by passed-on apostolic tradition. We are entitled, therefore, to regard the gospel he spells out in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, as well as the information he gives the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f, as a product of revelation, and not handed-on tradition from others. (He uses the same verb, paralambano, in all three places.)


Interesting how you read an historical Jesus into everything Paul states to the point of denying what he actually states.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to historia in post #21]


Galatians 1:13

You have heard what my manner of life was when I was still a practicing Jew: how savagely I persecuted the church of God, and tried to destroy it. [NEB]

The following is also from Doherty, the bold emphasis is mine:

A church founded by the followers of the earthly Jesus, who had personally chosen them as apostles and had directed them to teach all nations—and yet Paul calls it "the church of God"? On the other hand, if that church had formed as a result of God’s revelation through the Spirit (as Paul and other epistle writers repeatedly say), with Jesus merely the content of that revelation, the term is perfectly apt.


Richard Carrier who once believed that Jesus was an historical figure did so because a lot of the Christ myth theories are not good, however, it was the Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty that caused Richard Carrier to do a 180. Doherty's strength is in having a grasp of what Paul was on about, which is no easy task, further evidenced by the comments on this thread and others.

[historia]

Interesting how you read an historical Jesus into everything Paul states to the point of denying what he actually states.

On the contrary, I'm simply following the historical evidence.

I'm afraid Doherty is making the same elementary mistake you made above in equating Paul's "gospel" with "any" information about Jesus. That is simply an unfounded assumption.

Likewise, neither you nor Doherty address the thrust of my argument in post #21, which is that Paul must have been familiar with at least basic Christian beliefs about Jesus before his conversion. That, in itself, makes your interpretation untenable.

Like your previous replies, this one is, at best, sideways to my argument, and so serves as an ineffective rebuttal. Quoting the website of an amateur historian only weakens your position.

[neverknewyou]

Interesting how you read an historical Jesus into everything Paul states to the point of denying what he actually states.

On the contrary, I'm simply following the historical evidence.

I'm afraid Doherty is making the same elementary mistake you made above in equating Paul's "gospel" with "any" information about Jesus. That is simply an unfounded assumption.

Likewise, neither you nor Doherty address the thrust of my argument in post #21, which is that Paul must have been familiar with at least basic Christian beliefs about Jesus before his conversion. That, in itself, makes your interpretation untenable.



Like your previous replies, this one is, at best, sideways to my argument, and so serves as an ineffective rebuttal. Quoting the website of an amateur historian only weakens your position.

There is no need for you to refer to unstated hypothetical beliefs that you believe Paul must of had because we know what Paul knew about Christianity, Paul admits that others came before him and Paul explains what was up with the early Christians before he finally came along. They were reading their scriptures and having revelations, visions of a risen Christ, and then finally the light came on for Paul when he too had a revelation of a risen Christ. bold emphasis are mine:

Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.


Your referring to unstated hypothetical beliefs isn't saying anything, it certainly isn't evidence of anything. You had no counter argument and then made a personal slight towards the author I quoted which is a big fail when you have nothing. I pointed out what Paul knew about Christianity from what he stated himself and it scores against you.

[historia]

There is no need for you to refer to unstated hypothetical beliefs that you believe Paul must of had because we know what Paul knew about Christianity, Paul admits that others came before him and Paul explains what was up with the early Christians before he finally came along. They were reading their scriptures and having revelations, visions of a risen Christ, and then finally the light came on for Paul when he too had a revelation of a risen Christ. bold emphasis are mine:

Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Sure, everyone recognizes that Paul claimed to have had a vision of Jesus.

In this passage, he's noting that, after Jesus' death and burial -- which, it should go with out saying, indicates Paul thought Jesus had been a human here on the earth -- several of his followers had a vision of him. And then later Paul himself had one of those visions.

That is completely in keeping with my view.

It's pretty clear this isn't everything Paul knew about Jesus -- this is just the thing of "first importance." Nor does it tell us how he got this information. In fact, in so far as Paul is using here the typical language of oral tradition -- "delivering" to the Corinthians what he had himself "received" -- it would seem that this passage indicates Paul knew things about Jesus from oral tradition, not just revelation, as you claimed.

I pointed out what Paul knew about Christianity from what he stated himself and it scores against you.

It appears you have this backward.

Your referring to unstated hypothetical beliefs isn't saying anything, it certainly isn't evidence of anything.

The fact that Paul must have been familiar with at least some Christian beliefs about Jesus prior to his conversion is an inference that follows logically and necessarily from the evidence.

All historical analysis involves drawing inferences from evidence. So, unless you can give us a good reason why we shouldn't make this inference, I'm afraid your complaint here is not a rebuttal of my argument so much as a confession that you don't know how historical analysis works.

You had no counter argument

To what? Neither you nor Doherty directly addressed my argument, so there's little for me to counter. His first comment is based on an elementary mistake, as already noted. And his second comment had nothing to do with anything I said, so was just a non-sequitur.

and then made a personal slight towards the author I quoted

You appealed to Doherty as if he were an authority. I simply pointed out that he is an amateur historian, which is a factual statement, not a slight. Citing amateur historians makes your position look desperate, so is ill-advised in a debate.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to historia in post #26]

The early epistle writers believed what they read in their ancient scriptures and they believed in their revelations.

Stating that they must have believed something from oral tradition requires that you state what that is and how you know, otherwise you are just providing hypotheticals, which tells us more about what you believe than it does about what the epistle writers believed. I look to the epistles to see what they believe and they provide plenty, and Paul emphasizes that we believe.

You have read the gospels, or are at least are familiar enough with the story to have drawn conclusions, and from those conclusions you have formulated beliefs. Now you are trying to impose your beliefs about an historical Jesus onto the epistle writers but they don't know that gospel story because it wasn't written until after they died. What is evident is that they have their own story.



You provided one line from a paragraph, Hebrews 7:14, you removed it from its context in order to do that so I looked it up. It was within a verse that compares Christ to Melchizedek, so I looked up Melchizedek, here are two excerpts from wiki :

The association with Christ is made explicit by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Melchizedek the "king of righteousness" and "king of peace" is explicitly associated with the "eternal priesthood" of the Son of God.[74]


In the New Testament, references to Melchizedek appear only in the Epistle to the Hebrews, though these are extensive (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21 KJV). Jesus Christ is there identified as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek, quoting from Psalm 110:4.[71]


It is evident that early Christian epistle writers used their ancient scriptures as sources for their Christ figure, and that Paul learned of those sources from them.