New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by Giuseppe »

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by Peter Kirby »

I guess writing to JP Meier is easier than showing their ideas to be true.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by hakeem »

Based on the existing evidence I agree that Jesus was indeed an invention with no history. It is quite absurd to argue that Jesus was a marginal Jew when Christian writers admit their Jesus had no human father.

No person has ever been born to a virgin without a human father.

This is "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian
18 Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed............. As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.
How could Jesus ever be a Jew when he could never have been born?
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by robert j »

hakeem wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:57 am Based on the existing evidence I agree that Jesus was indeed an invention ...
...
How could Jesus ever be a Jew when he could never have been born?
Asked and answered --- or in this case answered then asked.

If one accepts your assumption “that Jesus was indeed an invention” then your attempt to apply modern logic to 2000-year-old theological constructs (invention) is misguided.

I think Paul provides the best solution here.

In Paul’s system, the salvific benefit for humans provided by his Jesus Christ, as well as his Jesus Christ as a model for the wider resurrection to come, and the ability of his Jesus Christ to redeem humans from the Jewish law are all made significantly more relevant with the pre-existing heavenly benefactor having taken on human form to suffer and die and be resurrected.

“… having taken the form of a servant, having been made (γενόμενος) in the likeness of men, and having been found in form as a man” (Philippians 2:7-8).

“... having been made (born) (γενόμενον) of woman, having been made (born) (γενόμενον) under the law that He might redeem those under the Law, so that we might receive the divine adoption as sons. (Gal 4:4-5)

Theological constructs (invention).

Accursed is every man whoever shall not adhere to all the words of this law … (Deuteronomy 27:26)

… for being cursed by God is every one hanging upon a tree … (Deuteronomy 21:23)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; for it has been written: "Cursed is everyone hanging on a tree". (Galatians 3:13).

Theological constructs (invention).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by Giuseppe »

I think that there is an equivalent (for the Mythicists) to what are the Schweitzer's words for the believers, when he wrote that Christians needed to get away from their focus on the historical Jesus:
Modern Christianity must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Jesus.
The Mythicists must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Paul (or the authenticity of the his epistles). Which means: if they had to assume a falsified Paul, would be they still mythicists?

What I'm saying is that the Mythicists should always to attempt to deny the historicity even by appealing on the only Gospels.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by hakeem »

robert j wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:04 pm
Asked and answered --- or in this case answered then asked.

If one accepts your assumption “that Jesus was indeed an invention” then your attempt to apply modern logic to 2000-year-old theological constructs (invention) is misguided.
Your reply is absolute nonsense. It is certainly not modern logic that shows Jesus had no human father but Christians writings.

Matthew--Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a virgin
Luke ---Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.
John--Jesus was God Creator
Pauline Epistles--Jesus was God Creator, the Lord from heaven---the firstborn of the dead
Ignatius--Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.
Aristides--Jesus was God from heaven.
Justin--Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin
Irenaeus--Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin
Tertullian--Jesus was born of the seed of God without a human father.
Origen--Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.
Hippolytus--Jesus was the Logos of God
Eusebius--Jesus was true God of True God

Christian writings do show their Jesus was an invention.
I think Paul provides the best solution here.
You certainly have very limited understanding of the Pauline writings.

You seem not to know that the Pauline writings were used to argue against the so-called heretics.

Christian writers of antiquity who used the Pauline writings admitted Jesus had no human father or born of a Holy Ghost or God Creator.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by robert j »

hakeem wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:35 pm
Your reply is absolute nonsense. It is certainly not modern logic that shows Jesus had no human father but Christians writings.

[note by robert j --- left out here a fairly long argument by hakeem about "Jesus had no human father but Christians writings"]

You certainly have very limited understanding of the Pauline writings.
I’m not sure why the fixation in this response that “Jesus had no human father but Christians writings”

In my post that you are responding to, I did not claim that Jesus had a real human father. But rather I presented an interpretation of Paul (i.e. Christian writings) in which the human nature of Jesus was a theological construct (invention) with a specific purpose.

For Paul, the human nature of his Jesus was critically important for the primary benefits that his system offered to his converts. Paul’s Jesus took the form of a man so his death could provide salvific benefits for men. Paul’s Jesus took the form of a man so his resurrection could serve as a model --- as the first-fruit --- for the wider resurrection among believing men soon to come. Paul’s Jesus came as a Jew so he redeem all men from the curse of the Jewish law, as I presented in more detail in my post.

If one of his converts had asked Paul about a human father of Jesus, we don’t know what Paul might have answered --- such information is not found in Paul’s letters. Paul may have elaborated, he may have evaded the question, or he may have said it wasn’t important.

In Paul, focusing on this unanswerable question is missing the forest for the trees. What is more important, IMO, is that Paul does not clearly place his Jesus Christ in any specific period of time --- and certainly not in any clear fashion as a near contemporary of Paul. Rather, Paul’s Jesus appears to be a creature of the Jewish scriptures. Along with Paul’s fertile imagination (including concepts in the air at the time), the LXX appears to be Paul’s primary source text and proof-text by means of creative readings.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by MrMacSon »

robert j wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:04 pm
hakeem wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:57 am
Based on the existing evidence I agree that Jesus was indeed an invention ...

... How could Jesus ever be a Jew when he could never have been born?
.
In Paul’s system, the salvific benefit for humans provided by 'his Jesus Christ', as well as 'his Jesus Christ' as a model for the wider resurrection to come, and the ability of ' 'his' Jesus Christ' to redeem humans from the Jewish law are all made significantly more relevant with the pre-existing heavenly benefactor having taken on human form to suffer and die and be resurrected.

“… having taken the form of a servant, having been made (γενόμενος) in the likeness of men, and having been found in form as a man” (Philippians 2:7-8).

“... having been made (born) (γενόμενον) of woman, having been made (born) (γενόμενον) under the law that He might redeem those under the Law, so that we might receive the divine adoption as sons. (Gal 4:4-5)

Theological constructs (invention).


Accursed is every man whoever shall not adhere to all the words of this law … (Deuteronomy 27:26)

… for being cursed by God is every one hanging upon a tree … (Deuteronomy 21:23)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; for it has been written: "Cursed is everyone hanging on a tree". (Galatians 3:13).

Theological constructs (invention).

I presume by "Theological constructs (invention)" you mean each biblical passage above "Theological constructs (invention)"
  • ie. ^Theological constructs (invention)".

A significant issue is that we don't really know where the Pauline writings come from -ie. in what context they were actually written or whether what we have today reflects when they were first written. "his Jesus Christ" may be someone else's 'Jesus Chris't eg. later redactors'/editors'.


So this is more realistic -
robert j wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:04 am ..But rather I presented an interpretation of Paul (i.e. Christian writings) in which the human nature of Jesus was a theological construct (invention) with a specific purpose.

But "Paul's Jesus" may not be 'Paul's Jesus': Paul's Jesus my be a catholicised or a made-orthodox Christ.

  • I think eastern orthodoxy absolutely preceded Roman Catholicism .. (Catholicism is likely to be a post-Byzantine thing)

Yes,
robert j wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:04 am
Paul’s Jesus appears to be a creature of the Jewish scriptures ... by means of creative readings.
.


Yes, many, if not most, commentators are
robert j wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:04 am
... missing the forest for the trees
.

Yes,
robert j wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:04 am
Paul does not clearly place his Jesus Christ in any specific period of time --- and certainly not in any clear fashion as a near contemporary of Paul.
.

and Yes, with qualifications in [ ] -
robert j wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:04 am
[the eventual narrative about] Jesus was critically important for the primary benefits that his system offered to his converts ... Jesus [was given] the form of a man so his death could provide salvific benefits for men ... Jesus [was given] the form of a man so his resurrection could serve as a model --- as the first-fruit --- for the wider resurrection among believing men soon to come ... Jesus came as a Jew so he redeem all [Jews] from the curse of the Jewish law ...
.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by MrMacSon »

.
"Paul's Jesus" is likely to be an embellishment of a Pauline Christ; an embellishment made at the time the Pauline texts were being aligned with the synoptic gospels and other texts as the NT was being developed.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:33 pm
The Mythicists must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Paul (or the authenticity of 'his' epistles).
.

Yep. Christian apologists ought to be challenged on that, too.
Post Reply