From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:37:47 GMT
	<Nov.12.03.51.21.1992.17371@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Organization: no no and no

In article <Nov.12.03.51.21.1992.17371@geneva.rutgers.edu> 
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>I think you're blaming some things on Paul that he isn't responsible for.

Paul's brand of Christianity is the one that won in the West. I think you
might be unaware of how much Paul affected Western Christianity.

>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>1. Paul claims that Jesus is the son of God, born of the virgin Mary, wife
>>of Joseph.
>>	the other religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Paul's claim that the
>>	Lord of the Hebrews somehow plants his seed in Mary and she conceives
>>	of Jesus, the son of God is very reminiscent of the creation of
>>	demi-gods in pagan religions. Presumably, Jesus being of God and Mary
>>	is part human, part God, hence demi-God.
>The virgin birth is in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.  Not in Paul.
>Indeed one of the standard arguments that critics make against it is
>that Paul didn't seem to know about it.  Also, even in Matthew nothing
>is said about God planting seed.

If Paul claims that Jesus is the son of God, then Jesus must be the seed of
God and Mary gave birth to the seed (Jesus) of God.

>The statement is "she was found to
>be with child from the Holy Spirit".  This says that God is
>responsible for the child, but doesn't specify how.

It also doesn't say son of God.

>The Holy Spirit
>is probably not the form of God one would cite if one envisioned
>physical activity.  There's no concensus among interpreters on the
>method involved in the virgin birth, but physical impregnation is
>not high on the list.

>>2. Paul claims that Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time.
>>	Now, in most cultures of the world, it is an insult for a son to
>>	claim he is his father, particularly if the father is still alive.
>>	Nonetheless, this is Paul's claim. 
>As far as I can find, Paul doesn't claim that Jesus is God.

Pauline Christianity does.

>He says
>things like "he is the image of the invisible God".  I think you're
>taking the wording behind Christian doctrines too literally, and
>further are reading later views into Paul.  The most explicit
>identifications between Jesus and God are actually in the Gospel
>according to John.

We don't know who wrote the Gospels of the New Testament. Paul may or may
not have written some or all, that is not important here. What's important
is how Paul interpreted the Bible and founded the doctrine of Western
Christianity, or "The One True Way to Interpret Scripture".

>>3. Paul claims that Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time and
>>that Jesus suffers and dies on the cross and reincarnates or comes back to
>>life.
>
>>	dies. Jesus as God dies? How can God die? God was never born, He
>>	just is. But Jesus was born and is God, according to Paul, and since
>>	Jesus (God) was born then he also must die. 
>"Jesus as God dies" is not a statement that a Christian would ever
>make.

If Jesus is the one and only God and Jesus dies on the cross, then God dies
on the cross. Or Jesus isn't the one and only God. Or Jesus doesn't die.

>Certainly Paul doesn't make it.  This is moving a few centuries
>later than the Bible, but orthodox theology says that in Jesus we have
>two separate things: a normal human life, and the presence of God.

The presence of God is not the same as *is God*. What you are describing is
either an enlightened human being or a demi-God, but not the God.

>These things must not be confused.  (Doing so is a heresy.) 

Heresy, now there's an interesting concept. A Heretic is one who interprets
the Bible in a manner different than the "official", often Paulist 
interpretation. What is wrong with everyone reading the Bible for themselves,
instead of using it only as pseudo-proof of Paulism? Is it possible to read
the Bible with an open mind or must one already have a doctrine in place and
look only for proof of that doctrine while ignoring the clues that prove the
doctrine wrong? My how easy it is to lead the flock astray.

>Thus the
>orthodox statement would be "Jesus as a human being dies".  God
>experiences death,

How can God "experience death"? By Paulist doctrine, death is the penalty for
original sin. God (Jesus) is a sinner?

>but though his identification with the human, i.e. somewhat "indirectly".

Then Jesus is only God somewhat "indirectly", thus not *God*.

>Theologians were very careful (probably too
>careful, in my view) to avoid saying that God the Father died.

Why? Jesus dies on the cross, right? And Jesus is God right? So, God dies on
the cross. Where's the problem?

>>	...Jesus being a son of God has the power of
>>	reincarnation, and so Jesus comes back to life and then goes into
>>	hiding somewhere.
>The language used by Paul and others generally says that God raised
>Jesus.  That is, Jesus is as mortal as the rest of us.

Then, Jesus is a prophet, not God.

>It is God's power working through him that causes the resurrection.

Prophets have this kind of power, being one with God.

>Although in a
>literal sense this is reincarnation, the word reincarnation has
>taken on a specific meaning what is not consistent with what 
>Christians think happened.

Why not? Please explain.

>>	The followers of Judaism are expecting a prophet to
>>	restore Israel. Paul's version of the history of Jesus does not
>>	fit Judaism at all.
>That is certainly clear.  If you're really interested in the
>relationship, I strongly recommend H.J. Schoeps' "Paul".  Schoeps is a
>Jewish scholar, whose personal views on Christianity are quite
>critical.  But he does a good job of showing how Paul's ideas are, and
>are not, based on 1st Cent. Jewish beliefs.
>Note however that this posting shows little sign of knowing what Paul
>actually said.  Perhaps you've been reading too many postings from
>people who blame all of what they think are Christianity's errors on
>Paul.

Oh? And what do you claim is the source of Western Christian doctrine? By
what standard is a heretic defined?