bounced: Teachings V. Resurrection
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Mon, 01 Feb 1999 10:41:41 -0600 (00917908901, 4.1.19990201104005.00a3de20@pop.truman.edu)
--=====================_9616878==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> snip
>
> >Achilles
> >
> >I will be interested to see how Ed answers that, but this is my answer.=
=20
> >
> >You are begging the question of the the historicity of Jesus.=20
> >
> >The Epistles do not support you on this. I know you think they do, but
> that's=20
> >because you have never read them without assuming the framework of the
> Gospel=20
> >stories and later Christian doctrine. However, they do not require that=
=20
> >framework to make sense.=20
> >
> >It is quite possible that Christ, to the earliest Christians, was a=
purely=20
> >celestial deity or quasi-deity. Paul in fact specifically argued for a=20
> >spiritual, not a physical resurrection when he asked if corruptibility=
could
>
> >put on incorruptibility (I am tired so I won't dig up the verse tonight,=
I
> am=20
> >sure you know the passage I mean.)=20
>
> Ed
>
> I agree with you almost completely. Although I'm convinced that the
> documentary evidence of Q and Thomas supported by the preponderance of
> analogues from other myths mitigates for the conclusion that there was a
> historical Jesus at the core of the gospel sayings (and also find=
arguments
> for the pure mythicist position specious, to say the least) it seems clear
> that the earliest Christians didn't see the resurrection as physical. I
> believe it's Crossan who has documented the layers of mythic accretion on=
the
> resurrection accounts of the gospels, so there's some pretty compelling
> evidence there too. =20
>
> Achilles
> >
> >There are dozens of similar points, for instance the many cases where
> Epistle=20
> >writers quoted sayings the Evangelists attributed to Jesus, but never is=
it=20
> >mentioned that Jesus said these things! Only later, in the Gospels, does
> that=20
> >come up. I don't think you will find any references to Pilate in the
> Epistles=20
> >either - Paul wrote that the Christ was crucified by the principalities -
> the=20
> >archons or evil spirits that ruled the air.=20
>
> Ed
>
> Pilate shows up in 1 Tim 6:13 and that's it. However, this instance is
> significant because in it Paul has Jesus speaking to Pilate (although he
> doesn't quote Jesus); this and several other passages in the epistles make=
it
> seem rather extravagant for the mythicist position to claim that Paul=
thought
> Jesus was "purely celestial." At least we know from 1 Tim. that the tale=
of
> Christ before Pilate was circulating very early, and probably widely.
>
> The use of arch=EA or principalities is somewhat ambiguous and could
signify the
> "powers of the air," an order of angels, or an abstraction of civil=
authority
> (compare "justice"). =20
>
> Some conservative Protestant exegetes argue that Paul isn't the author
> (because of the emphasis on church hierarchy and organization), but=
there's a
> distinct sectarian tone to their arguments. Whether Paul wrote it or not,=
1
> Tim's a very old document. It's seems that Paul's about as likely to have
> authored it as any. You know I'm skeptical about Pauline authorship,=
period.
>
> Achilles
> >
> >Have you ever read any of the non-christian religious literature of the
> time?=20
> >You might try Philo Judaeus. When you start to grasp the neo-platonic=20
> >worldview=20
> >it opens up a whole different understanding of the Epistles.=20
>
> Ed
>
> I sure does. There's no doubt that neo-Platonism shaped Christianity much
> more than Judaism did, which is to be expected considering where=
Christianity
> originated.
--=====================_9616878==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
snip
>Achilles
>
>I will be interested to see how Ed answers that, but this is my
answer.
>
>You are begging the question of the the historicity of Jesus.
>
>The Epistles do not support you on this. I know you think they do,
but that's
>because you have never read them without assuming the framework of
the Gospel
>stories and later Christian doctrine. However, they do not require
that
>framework to make sense.
>
>It is quite possible that Christ, to the earliest Christians, was a
purely
>celestial deity or quasi-deity. Paul in fact specifically argued for
a
>spiritual, not a physical resurrection when he asked if
corruptibility could
>put on incorruptibility (I am tired so I won't dig up the verse
tonight, I am
>sure you know the passage I mean.)
Ed
I agree with you almost completely. Although I'm convinced that the
documentary evidence of Q and Thomas supported by the preponderance of
analogues from other myths mitigates for the conclusion that there was a
historical Jesus at the core of the gospel sayings (and also find
arguments for the pure mythicist position specious, to say the least) it
seems clear that the earliest Christians didn't see the resurrection as
physical. I believe it's Crossan who has documented the layers of
mythic accretion on the resurrection accounts of the gospels, so there's
some pretty compelling evidence there too.
Achilles
>
>There are dozens of similar points, for instance the many cases where
Epistle
>writers quoted sayings the Evangelists attributed to Jesus, but never
is it
>mentioned that Jesus said these things! Only later, in the Gospels,
does that
>come up. I don't think you will find any references to Pilate in the
Epistles
>either - Paul wrote that the Christ was crucified by the
principalities - the
>archons or evil spirits that ruled the air.
Ed
Pilate shows up in 1 Tim 6:13 and that's it. However, this instance
is significant because in it Paul has Jesus speaking to Pilate (although
he doesn't quote Jesus); this and several other passages in the epistles
make it seem rather extravagant for the mythicist position to claim that
Paul thought Jesus was "purely celestial." At least we
know from 1 Tim. that the tale of Christ before Pilate was circulating
very early, and probably widely.
The use of arch=EA or principalities is somewhat ambiguous and could
signify the "powers of the air," an order of angels, or an
abstraction of civil authority (compare "justice"). =20
Some conservative Protestant exegetes argue that Paul isn't the
author (because of the emphasis on church hierarchy and organization),
but there's a distinct sectarian tone to their arguments. Whether
Paul wrote it or not, 1 Tim's a very old document. It's seems that
Paul's about as likely to have authored it as any. You know I'm
skeptical about Pauline authorship, period.
Achilles
>
>Have you ever read any of the non-christian religious literature of
the time?
>You might try Philo Judaeus. When you start to grasp the neo-platonic
>worldview
>it opens up a whole different understanding of the Epistles.
Ed
I sure does. There's no doubt that neo-Platonism shaped
Christianity much more than Judaism did, which is to be expected
considering where Christianity originated.
--=====================_9616878==_.ALT--