SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (15196)6/4/2001 10:38:02 AM
From: thames_sider  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
The Logos is an archetype, not a historical figure - Paul's Christ is a figure of divine inspiration, not a very recently killed man.

For example, he went to Jerusalem where he spent fifteen days with Peter (Galatians 1:18), whom Jesus had personally selected to be his earthly successor (Mt. 16:17-19). What did they talk about if not Jesus?

Those Pauline epistles considered to be genuine (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and perhaps Philippians and Philemon) were written between 50 and 60. They predate the gospels and are among the earliest extant Christian writings. Therefore, one would expect them to contain a wealth of details about Jesus' life and teachings, details confirming the gospel accounts. But this is far from the case. Concerning the alleged virgin birth Paul says only that, "Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4). The time, place and circumstances of Jesus’ birth, recorded in such great detail in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, are never mentioned. Paul says not one word about Joseph, Jesus’ surrogate father who figures so prominently in the birth narratives. Also, Paul apparently never heard of John the Baptist who not only baptized Jesus, but who is said to have been instrumental in the fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies said to confirm Jesus as the long awaited messiah. The most interesting of them all, however, is that in Romans 1:4 Paul says that Jesus was not officially recognized as "the Son of God" until after the resurrection.


If Paul was talking about a virtual contemporary, why so little mention of so many notable things?

In Philippians 3:10-11 Paul declares with great emotion, “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” Yet when he returns to Jerusalem it is merely to visit Peter, as mentioned above. He never expresses the slightest desire to see Bethlehem, Jesus’ birthplace, Nazareth, his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he is supposed to have held the fabled Last Supper, nor Calvary where the ultimate sacrifice was allegedly made. Most astonishing of all, however, is that there is not one hint of a pilgrimage to the tomb in which the resurrection, the center piece of Paul’s theology, is supposed to have taken place.
...
In his first Epistle to the Thessalonians (4:15-17) Paul assures his audience that the kingdom of God is at hand and will, in fact, take place during their lifetime. "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together," he tells them. Why at this point did he not appeal to the authority of Jesus himself who in Matthew 16:28 tells his listeners, "There are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The answer is obvious. Paul never heard of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. At the time Paul was preaching the Jesus myth had not yet been concocted.


home.inu.net

But I'm afraid I don't have very much time to debate it for now...

<edit> except that this article details a similar case, with solid-seeming references.
home.inu.net