From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:51:37 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Bxo9B1.J44@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
|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.

Mary was the decendant of David and so of Adam, who was God's creation.
Mary conceived and the implication there is there was no male sperm.
The Holy Spirit caused her to conceive - Jesus was the seed of a woman.
He was brought about by the will of God and not man (John 1:1-14) - He
is the Son of God - God caused his birth - Jesus is male.

|>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.

Is this close enough? (note verse 32.)

    Luke 1:26-33 (NIV)   In the sixth month, God sent the angel 
    Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, {27} to a virgin pledged 
    to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The 
    virgin's name was Mary. {28} The angel went to her and said, 
    "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." 
    {29} Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what 
    kind of greeting this might be. {30} But the angel said to her, 
    "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. {31} You 
    will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give 
    him the name Jesus. {32} He will be great and will be called the 
    Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of 
    his father David, {33} and he will reign over the house of Jacob 
    forever; his kingdom will never end." 

|>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.

Prophecy does - Jesus is the Creator - God is the Creator.  Jesus told us,
that we are to worship God alone and Jesus recieved worship, for He is God.

|>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".

Again, you are assuming that Paul was the creator and not the messenger.

|>>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.

Jesus the man died - God did not 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.

I believe orthodox theology says Jesus was fully human and fully God -
not that he had the presence of God.  Paul tells us that Jesus humbled
himself and was found in the form of a man.

|>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?

God made him a guilt offering - it was planned from the beginning of the world.

|>but though his identification with the human, i.e. somewhat "indirectly".
|
|Then Jesus is only God somewhat "indirectly", thus not *God*.

He was God - and clothed himself with humanity, but he didn't cease being 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.

Jesus also told us that he, himself, would raise his body from the grave.

|>It is God's power working through him that causes the resurrection.
|
|Prophets have this kind of power, being one with God.

Even after they are dead?

|>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?

Again, I ask for your reasoning for saying Paul created the doctrine and
was not just the messenger.  There is no doubt that Paul was a major 
player in the NT church.  However, it was well recognized by the other
disciples/apostles that Paul was the messenger to the Gentiles as Peter
was the messenger to the Jews - Peter, a man rather close to Jesus the Christ,
recognized this and that Paul's writings were authoritive (i.e., Scripture.)

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc