For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

This is a continuation from another thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...313197&page=11

I've titled this "For Kapyong", but anyone can jump in at any time. This thread is for me to defend my claim that the evidence is strong to support the idea of a historical Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong (Post 11573355) Gday GDon and all :) Quote: Originally Posted by Gdon GMark and Paul writing about the same person, ... We have those two texts. We have them apparently writing about the same person as a person who actually lived. Sorry GDon, I do not think you have shown that at all. Because, I don't think you have answered my challenge to your view - Althought Paul apparently considered Jesus to be a Jewish man who lived, he never claimed Jesus lived on EARTH. Paul believed in a REAL, LIVING, MAN Jesus, yes, I so stipulate :) It appears you just assume that real, and living, and born of woman, meant so on Earth, when Paul does not give any earthly place, date, or name. I think it is more reasonable to argue Paul meant the crucifixion happened in heaven, considering all the heavenly terms an phrases he uses about Jesus Christ. Can you show why we should interpret Paul to mean an EARTHLY Jesus Christ ?

Yes, it is a good question. If Paul supports an earthly Jesus, then IMO that puts the evidence quite clearly into HJ territory. One issue confusing this is that Paul definitely places Jesus in heaven AFTER the crucifixion. But what about beforehand?

Paul doesn't place Jesus on earth. But he uses language about Jesus that indicates that Jesus was a man, including calling him a 'man' ('anthropos').

Compare the language Paul uses about himself: In Romans 11:1

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul also calls Jesus 'seed of Abraham' (Gal 3:16) as well as 'seed of David'.

Also, Romans 9:

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came

This places Jesus at the end of a line of earlier Israelites, with those earlier Israelites presumably being people on earth.

The issue that needs to be highlighted here is one that confronts us numerous times in trying to reconstruct a historical Jesus: in the absence of a clear-cut statement from Paul indicating that Jesus was on earth, what can we decide? Is it:
(a) we can't make any evaluation?
(b) we can make some evaluation?

Here I think we can make some evaluation: in the absence of a clear-cut statement from Paul indicating that Jesus was on earth, we can look at the other writings on the time to determine what the ancient people made of such statements.

Here I can only conclude that (IMHO) Paul thought that Jesus was on earth, because he is using language consistent with that idea. Paul uses "my countrymen according to the flesh" for himself, and Jesus coming from the fathers of the Israelites "according to the flesh". Paul is a "seed of Abraham", and Jesus is also a "seed of Abraham".

And that is the mythicist challenge: to show that Paul could use such language but mean that Jesus was never on earth. And to show this, I mean by providing evidence that such language could be used in that way. I've looked at the cases provided by Dr Carrier and Doherty, and they do not have that evidence. Carrier comes closest with his "cosmic sperm bank", but even his examples are medieval and frankly incorrect.

Kapyong, what do you make of Romans 9? Can you show that such language was used to indicate men who were not born on earth?

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2erHV9c