Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

To Jesus Mythicists who... [challenge]

SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:02:57 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
To Jesus Mythicists who subscribe to Dr. Carrier's version of mythicism, what evidence is there that any Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus in a celestial realm?

In my mind, Dr. Carrier turns anything that references Docetism into this hypothetical view early Christians had.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:26:32 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:02:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
To Jesus Mythicists who subscribe to Dr. Carrier's version of mythicism, what evidence is there that any Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus in a celestial realm?

In my mind, Dr. Carrier turns anything that references Docetism into this hypothetical view early Christians had.

Interesting to see your stance on this evolve.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:46:03 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:02:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
To Jesus Mythicists who subscribe to Dr. Carrier's version of mythicism, what evidence is there that any Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus in a celestial realm?

In my mind, Dr. Carrier turns anything that references Docetism into this hypothetical view early Christians had.

You'll have to tell us what Carrier's version is.

The easy answer: Paul. How could he possibly know so little about an earthly Jesus when his writings are the closest to his alleged life?
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:20:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:26:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:02:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
To Jesus Mythicists who subscribe to Dr. Carrier's version of mythicism, what evidence is there that any Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus in a celestial realm?

In my mind, Dr. Carrier turns anything that references Docetism into this hypothetical view early Christians had.

Interesting to see your stance on this evolve.

Ya. The main reasons I held onto the view were because of the vision of Isaiah seeming to have a purely celestial background, the logos (Jesus) connection in Philo, and Paul seemingly being unaware of any human Jesus.

What got me to question it a lot more than ever before was when I found Dr. Carrier saying that certain references in different writings must be evidence of his hypothetical celestial realm Jesus, but they could work just as well for doceticm.

I do not discount that there may have been purely celestial stories, but I do not think that Dr. Carrier is nearly as correct as he thinks.
The Philo connection is still something I think is important.
I think Paul may have been docetic or proto-docetic, but not this "purely celestial" stuff Dr. Carrier proposes.
And I think there is a proto-Vision of Isaiah that lacks the crucifixion that is purely celestial, but whether this was originally a story about Jesus or not becomes open for debate.

I still am not a historicist.
My current view is that through generations of Oral Tradition and Story Telling, fictional figures, real figures, good lessons, etc. all eventually merged into one figure.
There could be a central figure these merged onto (who would be the historical Jesus), but such a figure is not necessary.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:46:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:02:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
To Jesus Mythicists who subscribe to Dr. Carrier's version of mythicism, what evidence is there that any Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus in a celestial realm?

In my mind, Dr. Carrier turns anything that references Docetism into this hypothetical view early Christians had.

You'll have to tell us what Carrier's version is.

The original Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus who acted only in a purely celestial realm, and that knowledge of him happened only be revelation. He was later placed into history, and the original view was lost.

The easy answer: Paul. How could he possibly know so little about an earthly Jesus when his writings are the closest to his alleged life?

Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:32:13 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:46:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:02:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
To Jesus Mythicists who subscribe to Dr. Carrier's version of mythicism, what evidence is there that any Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus in a celestial realm?

In my mind, Dr. Carrier turns anything that references Docetism into this hypothetical view early Christians had.

You'll have to tell us what Carrier's version is.

The original Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus who acted only in a purely celestial realm, and that knowledge of him happened only be revelation. He was later placed into history, and the original view was lost.

The easy answer: Paul. How could he possibly know so little about an earthly Jesus when his writings are the closest to his alleged life?

Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I guess you have extra biblical evidence of the "miracles" or at least you have historians who are prepared to claim that such miracles are in fact historical and can support such claims.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 12:44:55 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 3:32:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I guess you have extra biblical evidence of the "miracles" or at least you have historians who are prepared to claim that such miracles are in fact historical and can support such claims.

Oh Bulproof, another of your stupid comments.
When did I ever say that any biblical miracles happened?
I didn't.
I don't believe they did.
So, unless you want to continue being an idiot here, leave.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:05:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:46:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:02:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
To Jesus Mythicists who subscribe to Dr. Carrier's version of mythicism, what evidence is there that any Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus in a celestial realm?

In my mind, Dr. Carrier turns anything that references Docetism into this hypothetical view early Christians had.

You'll have to tell us what Carrier's version is.

The original Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus who acted only in a purely celestial realm, and that knowledge of him happened only be revelation. He was later placed into history, and the original view was lost.

You seem to be describing the authentic, non-interpolated writings of Paul perfectly. If we can believe them then he was certainly highly influential in proto-Christian communities outside of the Jerusalem area. If that is Carrier's view then I can't see any problem.

The easy answer: Paul. How could he possibly know so little about an earthly Jesus when his writings are the closest to his alleged life?

Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.

That's the standard apologetic response but is it credible? When Paul talks about resurrection in general, why does he spend so long on justifying it when he could just mention Lazarus and tell people to go look him up? It's obvious that he knows nothing about an earthly Jesus or anything he allegedly did. It defies common sense that he goes to Jerusalem and never bothers to see Mary (or Joseph) or mention anything about his family. This is the person he is putting at the head of the new church. How is that possible?

Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I don't buy it. Paul believed in a celestial realm. He even claimed to have visited it:

2 Corinthians 12
1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know"God knows. 3 And I know that this man"whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows" 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:13:55 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 3:05:51 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The original Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus who acted only in a purely celestial realm, and that knowledge of him happened only be revelation. He was later placed into history, and the original view was lost.

You seem to be describing the authentic, non-interpolated writings of Paul perfectly. If we can believe them then he was certainly highly influential in proto-Christian communities outside of the Jerusalem area. If that is Carrier's view then I can't see any problem.

I am slowly studying Paul in my downtime for a book (focusing more on the Johannine writings and Acts of Pilate for a paper I am writing to submit to a journal), and I don't think that is quite so justifiable.

It seems moreso like he is talking about a docetic Jesus (a view we know actually existed).

Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.

That's the standard apologetic response but is it credible? When Paul talks about resurrection in general, why does he spend so long on justifying it when he could just mention Lazarus and tell people to go look him up?

Because the Lazarus aspect was made up later.
Paul never even mentions the tomb or it being empty, probably because that was also a later invention.
You can't look at later writings and presuppose that those stories existed for Paul to know about.

It's obvious that he knows nothing about an earthly Jesus or anything he allegedly did.

Except get crucified, yes.
Also, he obviously knows nothing about a human Jesus, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about an earthly Jesus.
Everything he says works well for docetism, a view that we know existed. Why should we say that he held onto a hypothetical view instead of just saying docetism was an earlier view than previously thought?

It defies common sense that he goes to Jerusalem and never bothers to see Mary (or Joseph) or mention anything about his family.

If he was a docetist (which is what I think), then Jesus has no family.

This is the person he is putting at the head of the new church. How is that possible?

Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I don't buy it. Paul believed in a celestial realm. He even claimed to have visited it:

2 Corinthians 12
1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know"God knows. 3 And I know that this man"whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows" 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.

This talks about post ascension visions. This talks nothing about what happened pre-ascension.

Nothing Paul says contradicts docetism.
So, if one has to ask if Paul was docetic or believed in this hypothetical view, the prior probability favors docetism.
I do not think the evidence for this hypothetical view is enough to make it more probable than docetism.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 4:43:35 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 12:44:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:32:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I guess you have extra biblical evidence of the "miracles" or at least you have historians who are prepared to claim that such miracles are in fact historical and can support such claims.

Oh Bulproof, another of your stupid comments.
When did I ever say that any biblical miracles happened?
I didn't.
I don't believe they did.
So, unless you want to continue being an idiot here, leave.

So the phantom Jesus of docetism didn't perform miracles, WTF are those books about then?
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 5:11:10 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:43:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:44:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:32:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I guess you have extra biblical evidence of the "miracles" or at least you have historians who are prepared to claim that such miracles are in fact historical and can support such claims.

Oh Bulproof, another of your stupid comments.
When did I ever say that any biblical miracles happened?
I didn't.
I don't believe they did.
So, unless you want to continue being an idiot here, leave.

So the phantom Jesus of docetism didn't perform miracles, WTF are those books about then?

I didn't say that I am a docetist, I said that Paul probably was.
Do you have any comprehensive abilities whatsoever?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 7:24:40 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 5:11:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:43:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:44:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:32:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I guess you have extra biblical evidence of the "miracles" or at least you have historians who are prepared to claim that such miracles are in fact historical and can support such claims.

Oh Bulproof, another of your stupid comments.
When did I ever say that any biblical miracles happened?
I didn't.
I don't believe they did.
So, unless you want to continue being an idiot here, leave.

So the phantom Jesus of docetism didn't perform miracles, WTF are those books about then?

I didn't say that I am a docetist, I said that Paul probably was.
Do you have any comprehensive abilities whatsoever?
Oh I understand that you want your docetic mythical Jesus to be accepted as myth as opposed to carriers mythical Jesus.
I also understand you need to change hands occasionally.
hahaha
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 8:47:32 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 7:24:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/30/2016 5:11:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:43:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:44:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:32:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I guess you have extra biblical evidence of the "miracles" or at least you have historians who are prepared to claim that such miracles are in fact historical and can support such claims.

Oh Bulproof, another of your stupid comments.
When did I ever say that any biblical miracles happened?
I didn't.
I don't believe they did.
So, unless you want to continue being an idiot here, leave.

So the phantom Jesus of docetism didn't perform miracles, WTF are those books about then?

I didn't say that I am a docetist, I said that Paul probably was.
Do you have any comprehensive abilities whatsoever?
Oh I understand that you want your docetic mythical Jesus to be accepted as myth as opposed to carriers mythical Jesus.
I also understand you need to change hands occasionally.
hahaha

So, you don't have comprehensive abilities
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 2:25:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:46:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:02:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
To Jesus Mythicists who subscribe to Dr. Carrier's version of mythicism, what evidence is there that any Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus in a celestial realm?

In my mind, Dr. Carrier turns anything that references Docetism into this hypothetical view early Christians had.

You'll have to tell us what Carrier's version is.

The original Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus who acted only in a purely celestial realm, and that knowledge of him happened only be revelation. He was later placed into history, and the original view was lost.

The easy answer: Paul. How could he possibly know so little about an earthly Jesus when his writings are the closest to his alleged life?

Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

Most myths tend to have sprung from some factual event. An event that impresses people in some way, such that they choose to remember and tell each other about it. And then through the telling and retelling, the reason that the event caught people's attention tends to become more elaborate, and more important until it sublimates the actuality of the original event. And the story then becomes a means of conveying the idea/ideals that people found interesting and important within their vision of the original event.

I suspect some person, or perhaps a small group of persons did exist as the originators of the mythical "Jesus of Nazareth". And that as this person or persons actuality came to represent an important ideal, or set of ideas, to people, the actuality of the original persons and events became sublimated to those ideals. And the stories about the original people and events were "edited" and exaggerated over time to better convey the ideals that people found to be important about the events.

This is how actual historical people and events becomes mythical. This WHY the telling and retelling of actual events are often morphed to become mythical representations of archetypical cultural ideals.

I do not believe "Jesus" was originally viewed as a "purely celestial being" because the ideal that the mythical Jesus has come to represent is specifically concerned with perceiving the divine nature within the man, and ultimately within ourselves. And that's a determinedly NON-celestial view of "God" and of "Jesus".

I also think that some of the quotes and events attributed to Jesus are too specific and too individualized to have been invented or morphed for the sake of mythology. And so I suspect there really was some extraordinary person at the heart of this myth.

But unless we invent a time machine, and can go back to see for ourselves, we're never really going to know that for sure.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 1:28:17 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
If a celestial Jesus does exist, I'd like to imagine the body of this being as a river of cosmic lightning. I'd imagine that anyone being fortunate to get close to the essence of this living force of pure energy, to get struck by the exhilaration of such divine voltage would not cause bodily harm, rather undue all the harm from daily bombardments of negative vibrations.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 12:24:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 3:13:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:05:51 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The original Christians believed in a purely celestial Jesus who acted only in a purely celestial realm, and that knowledge of him happened only be revelation. He was later placed into history, and the original view was lost.

You seem to be describing the authentic, non-interpolated writings of Paul perfectly. If we can believe them then he was certainly highly influential in proto-Christian communities outside of the Jerusalem area. If that is Carrier's view then I can't see any problem.

I am slowly studying Paul in my downtime for a book (focusing more on the Johannine writings and Acts of Pilate for a paper I am writing to submit to a journal), and I don't think that is quite so justifiable.

It seems moreso like he is talking about a docetic Jesus (a view we know actually existed).

Not to me. Why then does he quote nothing from Jesus? None of his teachings, nothing. In fact Paul almost single-handedly invents most aspects of Christan doctrine and his inspiration is not anything coming directly from a docetic Jesus but from Jewish and Greek literature.

Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.

That's the standard apologetic response but is it credible? When Paul talks about resurrection in general, why does he spend so long on justifying it when he could just mention Lazarus and tell people to go look him up?

Because the Lazarus aspect was made up later.
Paul never even mentions the tomb or it being empty, probably because that was also a later invention.
You can't look at later writings and presuppose that those stories existed for Paul to know about.

Fair enough, but what is left when you dismiss almost everything in the gospels apart from the crucifixion? Not much. That doesn't sound like a docetic Jesus (who must surely have made some impact) but a celestial Jesus who did not interact with humanity.

It's obvious that he knows nothing about an earthly Jesus or anything he allegedly did.

Except get crucified, yes.
Also, he obviously knows nothing about a human Jesus, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about an earthly Jesus.

Such as?

Everything he says works well for docetism, a view that we know existed. Why should we say that he held onto a hypothetical view instead of just saying docetism was an earlier view than previously thought?

See my reasons above.

It defies common sense that he goes to Jerusalem and never bothers to see Mary (or Joseph) or mention anything about his family.

If he was a docetist (which is what I think), then Jesus has no family.

I have to confess that I wasn't thinking when I wrote that. :-)

This is the person he is putting at the head of the new church. How is that possible?

Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I don't buy it. Paul believed in a celestial realm. He even claimed to have visited it:

2 Corinthians 12
1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know"God knows. 3 And I know that this man"whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows" 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.

This talks about post ascension visions. This talks nothing about what happened pre-ascension.

Huh? Ascension of who and how is that relevant? My point is that Paul firmly believed in levels of heaven and that they were populated. I don't see it as a huge leap that he may have envisaged his Jesus being crucified as a sacrifce there.

Nothing Paul says contradicts docetism.

It's what he doesn't say. Not a single word from the (illusory) mouth of Jesus.

So, if one has to ask if Paul was docetic or believed in this hypothetical view, the prior probability favors docetism.

No, for the reasons given above.

I do not think the evidence for this hypothetical view is enough to make it more probable than docetism.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 12:55:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 8:47:32 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 7:24:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/30/2016 5:11:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:43:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:44:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:32:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I guess you have extra biblical evidence of the "miracles" or at least you have historians who are prepared to claim that such miracles are in fact historical and can support such claims.

Oh Bulproof, another of your stupid comments.
When did I ever say that any biblical miracles happened?
I didn't.
I don't believe they did.
So, unless you want to continue being an idiot here, leave.

So the phantom Jesus of docetism didn't perform miracles, WTF are those books about then?

I didn't say that I am a docetist, I said that Paul probably was.
Do you have any comprehensive abilities whatsoever?
Oh I understand that you want your docetic mythical Jesus to be accepted as myth as opposed to carriers mythical Jesus.
I also understand you need to change hands occasionally.
hahaha

So, you don't have comprehensive abilities

So why is your mythical Jesus a better mythical Jesus than Carriers' mythical Jesus. I comprehend far better than you would like, your pathetic excuse for an attempt at demonstrating you intelligence by your OP is a childish attempt usually found in preschool kiddies.
Yes we are not impressed.
Children should be seen and not heard, talk to mummy about it.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 9:54:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 12:24:14 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:13:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I am slowly studying Paul in my downtime for a book (focusing more on the Johannine writings and Acts of Pilate for a paper I am writing to submit to a journal), and I don't think that is quite so justifiable.

It seems moreso like he is talking about a docetic Jesus (a view we know actually existed).

Not to me. Why then does he quote nothing from Jesus?

One thing to note is that the epistles we have are him writing to communities he already visited and preached at.
It very well could be that he did teach some sayings of Jesus to people during his actual visit and didn't feel the need to repeat those in the letters.
It could also be because he honestly didn't know hardly anything of Jesus except his post ascension stuff, and that many of the saying either didn't yet exist or were unknown to Paul.

None of his teachings, nothing. In fact Paul almost single-handedly invents most aspects of Christan doctrine and his inspiration is not anything coming directly from a docetic Jesus but from Jewish and Greek literature.

Yes, most of his ideas can be traced to Jewish and Greek literature, but that does not mean he invented it. It could be that someone else invented it and taught it, and that is what Paul learned.

Because the Lazarus aspect was made up later.
Paul never even mentions the tomb or it being empty, probably because that was also a later invention.
You can't look at later writings and presuppose that those stories existed for Paul to know about.

Fair enough, but what is left when you dismiss almost everything in the gospels apart from the crucifixion? Not much.

And what is the basis on Paul's view of Christianity?
The crucifixion and faith in Jesus, not much else.

That doesn't sound like a docetic Jesus (who must surely have made some impact) but a celestial Jesus who did not interact with humanity.
Except get crucified, yes.
Also, he obviously knows nothing about a human Jesus, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about an earthly Jesus.

Such as?

As I said, him getting crucified.
I was pointing out that Paul does constantly bash "flesh", but that does not mean "celestial Jesus".

Everything he says works well for docetism, a view that we know existed. Why should we say that he held onto a hypothetical view instead of just saying docetism was an earlier view than previously thought?

See my reasons above.

Which is all arguments from silence.
While arguments from silence are permissible in historical study, they are not the best basis for an argument, especially when we know there was more data than we even have.

If we were looking at a single manuscript in which we had just under half of it, arguments from silence would be extremely weak in discussing that manuscript.
In Paul's case, we don't have the letters that were sent to him (to understand exactly why he said what he did), we don't know what he taught people on their initial visit, we don't even have all of his epistles.

If he was a docetist (which is what I think), then Jesus has no family.

I have to confess that I wasn't thinking when I wrote that. :-)
This talks about post ascension visions. This talks nothing about what happened pre-ascension.

Huh? Ascension of who and how is that relevant?

After Jesus ascended. It is relevant because this is usually used as an argument that all interactions with Jesus must have been in the celestial realm, but Paul makes it clear that this discussion (which he obviously is talking about himself without expressly saying it) happened after Jesus ascended.
If we had something about a human going to talk to or see Jesus in the celestial realm pre-ascension, then that would be something different.

My point is that Paul firmly believed in levels of heaven and that they were populated. I don't see it as a huge leap that he may have envisaged his Jesus being crucified as a sacrifce there.

Because we have no evidence that that belief even existed.
What he says matches docetism extremely well, and that is a view we do know existed.

Nothing Paul says contradicts docetism.

It's what he doesn't say. Not a single word from the (illusory) mouth of Jesus.

Which is an argument from silence, which I talked about above.

So, if one has to ask if Paul was docetic or believed in this hypothetical view, the prior probability favors docetism.

No, for the reasons given above.

Prior probability, not final probability.

I do not think the evidence for this hypothetical view is enough to make it more probable than docetism.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 9:57:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 12:55:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
So why is your mythical Jesus a better mythical Jesus than Carriers' mythical Jesus.

Carrier's hypothesis makes too many unfounded assumptions. My hypothesis simply extends already existing hypotheses further, and then gets rid of Jesus via Occam's Razor.

I comprehend far better than you would like,

Yet, let's look at what your first comment here was:
"I guess you have extra biblical evidence of the "miracles" or at least you have historians who are prepared to claim that such miracles are in fact historical and can support such claims."

Interesting, something which shows complete lack of comprehesion.

your pathetic excuse for an attempt at demonstrating you intelligence by your OP is a childish attempt usually found in preschool kiddies.
Yes we are not impressed.
Children should be seen and not heard, talk to mummy about it.

Oh, look, the idiot Bulproof still think he matters.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 5:32:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 9:54:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/1/2016 12:24:14 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:13:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I am slowly studying Paul in my downtime for a book (focusing more on the Johannine writings and Acts of Pilate for a paper I am writing to submit to a journal), and I don't think that is quite so justifiable.

It seems moreso like he is talking about a docetic Jesus (a view we know actually existed).

Not to me. Why then does he quote nothing from Jesus?

One thing to note is that the epistles we have are him writing to communities he already visited and preached at.
It very well could be that he did teach some sayings of Jesus to people during his actual visit and didn't feel the need to repeat those in the letters.

That is the standard apologetics but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Paul often went into detail on particular doctrine but not once did he defer to Jesus. Jesus was not an authority to him. How could this be with a docetic Jesus?

It could also be because he honestly didn't know hardly anything of Jesus except his post ascension stuff, and that many of the saying either didn't yet exist or were unknown to Paul.

Then why would Paul have believed in a docetic Jesus? Yours is a self-defeating argument if I have ever seen one.

None of his teachings, nothing. In fact Paul almost single-handedly invents most aspects of Christan doctrine and his inspiration is not anything coming directly from a docetic Jesus but from Jewish and Greek literature.

Yes, most of his ideas can be traced to Jewish and Greek literature, but that does not mean he invented it. It could be that someone else invented it and taught it, and that is what Paul learned.

Someone else? Who?
Again I don't buy it. If you read Paul he goes into great convoluted arguments to justify his positions. He even changes his stance on some aspects of doctrine in later epistles. This is someone working things out. He often comes across as humble but never cites some higher authority to whom he owes a debt. None of this is consistent with a mentor to Paul.

Because the Lazarus aspect was made up later.
Paul never even mentions the tomb or it being empty, probably because that was also a later invention.
You can't look at later writings and presuppose that those stories existed for Paul to know about.

Fair enough, but what is left when you dismiss almost everything in the gospels apart from the crucifixion? Not much.

And what is the basis on Paul's view of Christianity?
The crucifixion and faith in Jesus, not much else.

That's rather simplistic I think. Paul listed extensive moral teachings about how people should behave (no reference to the teachings of Jesus) and had the courage to go against Jewish dietary laws and circumcision. But I think you missed the point. I was talking about the alleged life of Jesus. If you take out all the personal detail in the gospels all you are left with is a shell of a man and pretty much one event. That's hardly enough for a docetic Jesus.

That doesn't sound like a docetic Jesus (who must surely have made some impact) but a celestial Jesus who did not interact with humanity.

Except get crucified, yes.
Also, he obviously knows nothing about a human Jesus, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about an earthly Jesus.

Such as?

As I said, him getting crucified.

We have covered this.

I was pointing out that Paul does constantly bash "flesh", but that does not mean "celestial Jesus".

Everything he says works well for docetism, a view that we know existed. Why should we say that he held onto a hypothetical view instead of just saying docetism was an earlier view than previously thought?

See my reasons above.

Which is all arguments from silence.
While arguments from silence are permissible in historical study, they are not the best basis for an argument, especially when we know there was more data than we even have.

What data?
Arguments from silence are perfectly valid when you would reasonably expect a mention to be made. Not once when discussing moral teachings (say) does Paul state "And Jesus taught us blah, blah, blah". You cannot dismiss this kind of glaring omission. It is obvious that Paul knew of no teachings by Jesus, hence a docetic Jesus is highly unlikely.

If we were looking at a single manuscript in which we had just under half of it, arguments from silence would be extremely weak in discussing that manuscript.

But that's not the case so I don't know why you raise it.

In Paul's case, we don't have the letters that were sent to him (to understand exactly why he said what he did), we don't know what he taught people on their initial visit, we don't even have all of his epistles.

How can you know the latter? You are continually appealing to the unknown which is a very weak basis for argument. We don't need any of the things you list as I have already explained. It beggars belief that Paul would not once quote Jesus in a written document to bolster some argument he was making. It matters not what he may or may not have taught in person (we will never know).

If he was a docetist (which is what I think), then Jesus has no family.

I have to confess that I wasn't thinking when I wrote that. :-)

This talks about post ascension visions. This talks nothing about what happened pre-ascension.

Huh? Ascension of who and how is that relevant?

After Jesus ascended.

Well, everything Paul wrote was post-ascension (alleged). I still fail to see your point.

It is relevant because this is usually used as an argument that all interactions with Jesus must have been in the celestial realm, but Paul makes it clear that this discussion (which he obviously is talking about himself without expressly saying it) happened after Jesus ascended.

See above. I am not aware that Paul ever talked about ascension in his authentic epistles (not Hebrews) so I can't understand where you are coming from.

If we had something about a human going to talk to or see Jesus in the celestial realm pre-ascension, then that would be something different.

We don't have Paul (or anyone else contemporary) talking to or seeing a docetic Jesus pre-ascension either but that doesn't seem to prevent you favouring that view. This seems somewhat hypocritical.

My point is that Paul firmly believed in levels of heaven and that they were populated. I don't see it as a huge leap that he may have envisaged his Jesus being crucified as a sacrifce there.

Because we have no evidence that that belief even existed.

But we do. The evidence is Paul's written works and what he does and does not say. Isn't that what we are discussing?

What he says matches docetism extremely well, and that is a view we do know existed.

No it doesn't match well for the reasons I have given. It seems like your mind is made up though.

Nothing Paul says contradicts docetism.

It's what he doesn't say. Not a single word from the (illusory) mouth of Jesus.

Which is an argument from silence, which I talked about above.

So have I.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 5:37:52 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 5:11:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:43:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:44:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:32:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:24:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Paul's theology seems entirely focused on the resurrection itself, and so it seems as if any part of Jesus' life would be unimportant to him.
Furthermore, while he does seem to indicate, at points, that Jesus might not have been human, this doesn't necessarily mean Paul didn't see Jesus as being on earth. He could easily have been docetic.

I guess you have extra biblical evidence of the "miracles" or at least you have historians who are prepared to claim that such miracles are in fact historical and can support such claims.

Oh Bulproof, another of your stupid comments.
When did I ever say that any biblical miracles happened?
I didn't.
I don't believe they did.
So, unless you want to continue being an idiot here, leave.

So the phantom Jesus of docetism didn't perform miracles, WTF are those books about then?

I didn't say that I am a docetist, I said that Paul probably was.
Do you have any comprehensive abilities whatsoever?
The biblical Paul is yet another Historical MYTH!

TL;DR Outside of the Bible, there is no historical record of the Apostle Paul.

(Composer's Source: http://www.reddit.com...)
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 7:15:53 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 5:37:52 AM, Composer wrote:
At 9/30/2016 5:11:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I didn't say that I am a docetist, I said that Paul probably was.
Do you have any comprehensive abilities whatsoever?
The biblical Paul is yet another Historical MYTH!


TL;DR Outside of the Bible, there is no historical record of the Apostle Paul.

(Composer's Source: http://www.reddit.com...)

So, yet another person who doesn't understand the historical method.
At least say that Paul is Simon Magus like Dr. Price and Detering.

This is why I keep leaving this site, too many people here don't understand historical methodology.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 8:46:59 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 7:15:53 AM, SNP1 wrote:
This is why I keep leaving this site, too many people here don't understand historical methodology.
Well to be benevolent to you, apart from the man-made bible, give us your apparent convincing version - proofs for a literal biblical Paul?
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 5:00:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 8:46:59 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/2/2016 7:15:53 AM, SNP1 wrote:
This is why I keep leaving this site, too many people here don't understand historical methodology.
Well to be benevolent to you, apart from the man-made bible, give us your apparent convincing version - proofs for a literal biblical Paul?

You do know that only idiots say that the books of the Bible can't be evidence, right?
Paul wrote letters.
He called himself Paul.
It doesn't matter if his name is actually Paul or not, there is a historical "Paul".
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 8:22:22 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 5:00:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/2/2016 8:46:59 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/2/2016 7:15:53 AM, SNP1 wrote:
This is why I keep leaving this site, too many people here don't understand historical methodology.
Well to be benevolent to you, apart from the man-made bible, give us your apparent convincing version - proofs for a literal biblical Paul?

You do know that only idiots say that the books of the Bible can't be evidence, right?
Paul wrote letters.
He called himself Paul.
It doesn't matter if his name is actually Paul or not, there is a historical "Paul".

The biblical Paul is Mythical!

(Composer's Source: http://www.reddit.com...)

TL;DR Outside of the Bible, there is no historical record of the Apostle Paul.

My Post remains vindicated!