evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistles

[TedM]

I have already pointed out that Paul gives no indication in Galatians that the Jerusalemites knew anything about Jesus,

IMO the entire book of Galatians is indication that the Jerusalemites knew a lot about Jesus, but perhaps I have insight that you don't.

[stephan happy huller]

The Marcionite text of Galatians didn't have most of chapters 1 and 2. The silence about Marcion's opinion in this section of text extends from Tertullian to Origen's lost commentary (generally understood to be at the heart of Jerome's commentary). I think all personal references in the Pauline letters were added later by a Catholic editor but re-edited a number of times. I am not sure if that means that there was no Jerusalem Church. The only thing we can be sure of is that the Marcionite letters - the original edition of the Pauline corpus - gave absolutely no insight into the identity of the original author of the material (Tertullian Against Marcion 5.1). He was a figure shrouded in the deepest mystery - deliberately.

[spin]

I have already pointed out that Paul gives no indication in Galatians that the Jerusalemites knew anything about Jesus,

IMO the entire book of Galatians is indication that the Jerusalemites knew a lot about Jesus,

...while never giving any indication.

[TedM]

I have already pointed out that Paul gives no indication in Galatians that the Jerusalemites knew anything about Jesus,

IMO the entire book of Galatians is indication that the Jerusalemites knew a lot about Jesus,

...while never giving any indication.

I think it is much more likely that he would indicate their disbelief or disinterest in Jesus, if that were the case, than say nothing. I'm appealing to common sense here - one of the things you have clearly said that you don't put much stock in, so what more really can be said about it?

[Peter Kirby]

Anyway, my initial posting was about evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistles and Hebrews.

Fixed it for you.

[arnoldo]

In favor of an ultra minimalist & non-Christian historicist position on Jesus (from a revised posting of mine on Richard Carrier's blog):
“In Paul’s epistles & ‘Hebrews’, Jesus is described as a descendant of Abraham (Galatians l3:16), Israelites (Romans 9:4-5), the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14), Jesse (Romans 15:12) & David (Ro1:3) and also requiring a woman in order to “come” under the Law (Galatians 4:4). “The one man Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:15) “humbled himself” (Philippians 2:8) in a world of “flesh & blood”, as one of them (Hebrews 2:14a,17a), among sinners, some opposing him (Hebrews 12:3). There he was tempted (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15) (in the same way as other humans) and heard by (earthly) witnesses talking about salvation (Hebrews 2:3). This Jesus, at some time in the past a minister to the Jews (Romans 15:8) and an apostle (Hebrews 3:1), had a brother called James (Galatians 1:19), whom Paul met several times (Galatians 1:19,2:9) and Josephus knew about (Ant. 20).
Let’s add to that Jesus was poor (2 Corinthians 8:9) and was crucified. What is the best location for that: earth or that celestial place below the moon?
Furthermore, Jesus is described to have brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:19). Paul also mentioned Jesus was handed down at night (1 Corinthians 11:23) prior to the crucifixion, alluding it took place in “Zion” (Romans 9:31-33, 15:26-27)."

Of course, on all these points (and they are quite a few), mythicists have come up with arguments against a natural reading.
But let me say I found those arguments very indirect, remote, weak, greatly biased, far-fetched and sometimes rather silly.

From my blog, three arguments in Paul's epistles for the existence of a man called Jesus (in Greek) as the man credited later to have started Christianity.
1) http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p20.htm
2) http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p28.htm
3) http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p30.htm

From 2 Corinthians, Paul indicated his Christians had been exposed in the past to a Jesus told in a worldly manner (not spiritual but mundane & temporal):
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p23.htm

Paul suggested the crucifixion was on earth (Zion):
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm

In 2 Corinthians, Paul wrote Jesus was poor, in poverty. Where would that be?
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p24.htm

I got more, but that will be it for now.

Cordially, Bernard

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 12:3 may be an unlikely scripture to cite for evidence of an earthly Jesus in Pauline epsitles. However,in this particular epistle, Paul appears to be writing against those who curse the earthly Jesus and instead choose to worship a purely spiritual "Lord of Glory." Another issue which Paul dealt with the Corinthian church was countering those who denied the resurrection of the dead ( 1 Corinthian 15:2).Jerome Murphy-O'Conner, in his book Paul a Critical Life, writes that Philo's concepts had infilitrated the Corinthian church which resulted in division within the Corinthian church. O'Conner writes,

If the body is `a plotter against the soul, a corpse and always a dead thing' (Leg. All. 3.69), it is natural to infer that the spirit-people were those who denied the resurrection (i Cor. 15: 12). Death, from their perspective, was liberation from the weight and defilement of the body (Som. 148). To recover the body after death would have been meaningless. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the spirit-people could have accepted Paul's preaching of Jesus as the Risen Lord in the sense that he intended. Perhaps they thought of him as a purely spiritual `Lord of Glory' (1 Cor. 2: 8). In reality they had no sense of Jesus; their attitude to him in effect said "Anathema Jesus (1 Cor.12:3).

[dewitness]

1 Corinthians 12:3 may be an unlikely scripture to cite for evidence of an earthly Jesus in Pauline epsitles. However,in this particular epistle, Paul appears to be writing against those who curse the earthly Jesus and instead choose to worship a purely spiritual "Lord of Glory."

Claiming that Paul wrote against those who cursed an earthly Jesus is likely claiming Plutarch wrote about an earthly Romulus or that there is an earthly Adam in the book of Genesis.

Paul is a "witness" of myth Jesus. Paul claimed he was seen of the resurrected Jesus and testified that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God's own son, was equal to God and that Jesus CREATED heaven and earth.

The Pauline Corpus is a compilation of fables and forgeries deliberately fabricated to invent a bogus history of the Church.

Up to the mid-third century there are Christian writers who were completely unaware of the Pauline Corpus and claimed that it was the 12 disciples that spread Christianity throughout the world---NOT Paul.

Aristides, Justin and Arnobius did not acknowledge Paul and did not acknowledge that he spread the Jesus story to the Non-Jewish world.

[MrMacSon]

1 Corinthians 12:3 may be an unlikely scripture to cite for evidence of an earthly Jesus in Pauline epsitles. However,in this particular epistle, Paul appears to be writing against those who curse the earthly Jesus and instead choose to worship a purely spiritual "Lord of Glory." Another issue which Paul dealt with the Corinthian church was countering those who denied the resurrection of the dead ( 1 Corinthian 15:2).Jerome Murphy-O'Conner, in his book Paul a Critical Life, writes that Philo's concepts had infilitrated the Corinthian church which resulted in division within the Corinthian church. O'Conner writes,

If the body is `a plotter against the soul, a corpse and always a dead thing' (Leg. All. 3.69), it is natural to infer that the spirit-people were those who denied the resurrection (i Cor. 15: 12). Death, from their perspective, was liberation from the weight and defilement of the body (Som. 148). To recover the body after death would have been meaningless. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the spirit-people could have accepted Paul's preaching of Jesus as the Risen Lord in the sense that he intended. Perhaps they thought of him as a purely spiritual `Lord of Glory' (1 Cor. 2: 8). In reality they had no sense of Jesus; their attitude to him in effect said "Anathema Jesus (1 Cor.12:3).

??? In context of the 1 Corinthians 12:1-2, that passage seems to be about a spiritual Jesus

1 Corinthians 12 [Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)]

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

" ... no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

[JoeWallack]

From my blog, three arguments in Paul's epistles for the existence of a man called Jesus (in Greek) as the man credited later to have started Christianity.

JW:
There was a rule at the old BCH that spin and I could not be on the same side of an argument but I see no such rule here, so.

In order to have any type of attitude towards MJ you should have, as Larry David would say, "pretty, pretty good" evidence for HJ. What do you have here? Everyone would agree that there is no physical evidence for HJ which is the best type of evidence. That leaves witness evidence. You proffer Paul. What criteria do you use to claim Paul is quality witness? I don't see any here. Referring to your website does not indicate it is easy to establish Paul as a quality witness, it indicates it is hard.

Since I have no idea whether you simply do not know what good criteria here would be or there is some reason why you neglect them in your discussion here I'll help you:

1) What qualities would a Court be looking for to place value on Paul's witness? (regarding claiming Hebrews as a quality witness to HJ I suspect the Court's reaction would be similar to the U.N.'s when Dr. Evil demanded a ransom of"...1 million dollars").

2) If there was a Life Insurance policy on Jesus what type of witness evidence would a claims adjuster be looking for?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[outhouse]

Beside the common misunderstanding of Gal 1:19 (which certainly does not say that James was the brother of Jesus), you are outlining Paul's ontology, which in itself says nothing about the historicity of Jesus..

How can you be so sure its 100% ontology?


Paul's Jesus dies for our sins and his resurrection is placed of high importance.


For me, only by focusing on Paul's mythology can one come to that conclusion. I see Paul wanting to be a real apostle pretty badly to a real Jesus.



I find OP's hypothesis credible, and I agree with you a little. It doesn't add volumes to Jesus historicity. But it does add to the big picture that there was a Galilean man who died at Passover.