How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Bunyip]

Legion

Paul never did meet Jesus, he met the risen Jesus, not the historical Jesus. What I said was the truth.

 

[Bunyip]

Is that really a meaningful statement when Paul (most likely) wouldn't make the distinction between the 'real' Jesus and the Jesus that he refers to?

Sure. But I'm sure that it is significant in establishing historicity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Paul never did meet Jesus, he met the risen Jesus, not the historical Jesus. What I said was the truth.

I've explicitly stated that I believe Jesus and Paul never met. This doesn't mean they were not contemporary, either in common parlance or in specialist historical literature. You blatantly contradicted yourself, then fall back on an unsubstantiated claim that you meant Paul wasn't contemporary evidence and that this is somehow something meaningful to real historians rather than one who first claimed to be an historian, then claimed to have majored in history, and most lately is an expert in espionage.

Funny how when it comes to Tacitus you can appeal to commentary by a translator you mistake for Tacitus, and in a "volume" Tacitus never wrote, and this is somehow not an appeal to authority, yet when I cite scholarship I am committing a fallacy.

 

[Bunyip]

I've explicitly stated that I believe Jesus and Paul never met. This doesn't mean they were not contemporary, either in common parlance or in specialist historical literature. You blatantly contradicted yourself, then fall back on an unsubstantiated claim that you meant Paul wasn't contemporary evidence and that this is somehow something meaningful to real historians rather than one who first claimed to be an historian, then claimed to have majored in history, and most lately is an expert in espionage.

Funny how when it comes to Tacitus you can appeal to commentary by a translator you mistake for Tacitus, and in a "volume" Tacitus never wrote, and this is somehow not an appeal to authority, yet when I cite scholarship I am committing a fallacy.

Actually no. I said that Paul was not contemprary evidence of Jesus because he did not meet 'Jesus'until after Jesus died. Which is true of course. That they both lived at he same time I never contested. And yes, my qualifications are in counter terrorism.

 

[`mud]

I probably missed something here....
After many years of forgetfulness....
how many years after Jesus died did Paul see the image of Jesus' risen ghost ?
~
'mud

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Funny how when it comes to Tacitus you can appeal to commentary by a translator you mistake for Tacitus, and in a "volume" Tacitus never wrote, and this is somehow not an appeal to authority, yet when I cite scholarship I am committing a fallacy.

Damn. You cited scholarship? Shame on you!

 

[oldbadger]

Page 50 Post 492

Is that really a meaningful statement when Paul (most likely) wouldn't make the distinction between the 'real' Jesus and the Jesus that he refers to?

Well I'm damned......
I expected to (at least) find a few lines of Paul's to show that he thought of Jesus the man just a few times. No Sir.

I found one direct reference to 'what Jesus said' in 1 Corinthians where Jesus spoke the communion at the last supper. I found Jesus's ruling about neighbourly love in Galatians and Romans but not attributed to Jesus, rather written as if Paul's initiative, and a few other rules were included alongside the Romans ref.

Nothing. Nearly every mention of Jesus's name that I saw referred to the God, the risen Lord......... Paul held no interest in Jesus the man.

This is utterly shocking, because years after these letters were written, G-Mark includes many many sayings and words of Jesus, and the reports the other gospels positively gush with Jesus's sayings............ and from Paul, nothing.

In the same way, Paul offers not a single mention of a single life action of Jesus, nor his relationships.....

This is meaningful...... in that there is nothing offered by Paul which helps to bring the living, breathing, walking, talking loving, healing Jesus into focus.

Ergo........ Paul's letters are mostly useless in context with this debate.

 

[oldbadger]

Damn. You cited scholarship? Shame on you!

Well, the member was offering writings which can't hold up as Secondary or Hearsay evidence. We're looking for a single shred of Primary or Direct evidence in this particular debate, and it would be better if folks just admitted that there can be no 'certainty'. Then we might be able to push for plausibility, or probability etc. Nearly every member on this debate accepts 'possibility', so there is something to build upon.

 

[oldbadger]

I probably missed something here....
After many years of forgetfulness....
how many years after Jesus died did Paul see the image of Jesus' risen ghost ?
~
'mud

Hello 'mud!

Let's take guess at this.
I'm sure that more qualified members will be able to adjust this for us...

J's death circa 30CE
Saul's anti-Christian contract circa circa 35 CE

I'm guessing that Paul 'met' Jesus circa 33-37 CE.

Now watch out for the experts.....

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..how many years after Jesus died did Paul see the image of Jesus' risen ghost ?

He didn't see Jesus, he only saw a blinding light and heard Jesus's voice coming out of it.
It happened about 31 to 36 years after Jesus was crucified.
Paul was likely born between the years of 5 BC and 5 AD, so he probably never saw Jesus when he was alive, unless it was as a young nipper sitting on his dads shoulders.

WIKI PAUL- Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[`mud]

I'm so sorry...
I was trying to ask about what letter or script told about this happening ?
Was Jesus just talking to Saul, and no image at all, says Shuttle ?
The older I get, the more I forget, why did it take so long,
why didn't Saul talk about it sooner ?
How old was Matthew at this time, about 65 to 70 ?
They got pretty old in those days didn't they ?
And....how old was Saul ?
Why did he change his name ?
I'll have to do some research I guess, but hate Wikicrap.
Questions, questions....I've got a million of 'em.
~
nuff stuff
~
'mud

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I was trying to ask about what letter or script told about this happening

Acts 22:6-9 gives Pauls eyewitness account-
“As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me.
And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’
And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me"

Incidentally his Jewish name 'Saul' translates to 'Paul' in latin, so he chose to be called 'Paul' from then on to appeal to a wider audience on his travels.

 

[fantome profane]

Acts 22:6-9 gives Pauls eyewitness account-
“As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me.
And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’
And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me"

Incidentally his Jewish name 'Saul' translates to 'Paul' in latin, so he chose to be called 'Paul' from then on to appeal to a wider audience on his travels.

You get a very different account of this story from the actual letters of Paul than you do from the book of Acts. Paul never mentions a blinding light, he never mentions being blinded, and he never even mentions that his name was once Saul.

 

[fantome profane]

Is that really a meaningful statement when Paul (most likely) wouldn't make the distinction between the 'real' Jesus and the Jesus that he refers to?

But he actually does make such a distinction. He talks about those who knew Jesus in the flesh, and refers to himself as knowing Jesus in the spirit. He seems to feel that his Jesus was more "real" and is somewhat dismissive of anyone who only knew Jesus in the flesh. But he does seem to make a distinction.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

You get a very different account of this story from the actual letters of Paul than you do from the book of Acts. Paul never mentions a blinding light, he never mentions being blinded, and he never even mentions that his name was once Saul.

You must have missed his eyewitness account i posted earlier mate, here it is again-
“As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me.
And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’
And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me" (Acts 22:6-9)

You might also like to read the rest of Acts and you'll see he had to be led around for a while because the close encounter had blinded him.
You'll also see that it's common knowledge he was known as Saul when he was a bounty hunter..

 

[outhouse]

He didn't see Jesus, he only saw a blinding light and heard Jesus's voice coming out of it.

Again without any education, you have no business in a history thread making unsubstantiated argument's appealing to ignorance.


Paul did not tell us that happened. Paul tells us he had a feeling from within himself. That contradicts the rhetorical passage in acts.

 

[outhouse]

You must have missed his eyewitness account i posted earlier mate, here it is again-

Again without any education, you have no business in a history thread making unsubstantiated argument's appealing to ignorance.


There were no eyewitness accounts of jesus in all of the NT

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But he actually does make such a distinction. He talks about those who knew Jesus in the flesh, and refers to himself as knowing Jesus in the spirit. He seems to feel that his Jesus was more "real" and is somewhat dismissive of anyone who only knew Jesus in the flesh. But he does seem to make a distinction.

If it is a distinction, it is a distinction without a difference. Paul's resurrected Jesus is the same Jesus that the others saw in the flesh. The distinction that we make between the 'real' historical Jesus and the resurrected Jesus is an artificial one, at least for Paul.

Paul isn't dismissive of those who saw Jesus -- he does need to legitimize himself because his audiences knew that he did not see Jesus in the flesh, which is why in Galatians he talks about meeting Peter and John, who also saw the resurrected Jesus.

In any case, the earliest account of the Last Supper is in 1 Corinthians, where the 'real' Jesus appears with the 12.

 

[JM2C]

Nothing. Nearly every mention of Jesus's name that I saw referred to the God, the risen Lord......... Paul held no interest in Jesus the man.

Ro 1:3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Ro 1:4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Paul did not tell us that happened. Paul tells us he had a feeling from within himself. That contradicts the rhetorical passage in acts.

I think your monitor's playing up mate, it obviously isn't displayig Pauls own account for you which I posted earlier..
You'll be trying to tell us next that Paul never even existed..