David Engle wrote:
>At last Earl quotes someone name Robert Price who called Earl's discovery of
>the non-human Jesus in the epistles "brilliant."
The "someone named Robert Price" is a member of the Jesus Seminar and
co-editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism at Drew University.
>Earl, have you ever wondered why, during the 100+ yrs of "mythic Jesus"
>scholarship you mentioned, neither Wells nor anyone else ventured to make
>such a patently unsupportable and heavily contradicted claim?
I did not say that no one has ever put forward a fully mythic Jesus. Wells,
in fact, is as far as I know the first to offer this compromise position,
earlier proponents of the theory mostly regarding Jesus as originally of a
completely mythic nature.
>Even Ian Hutchesson dashed-off a "liddle list" of Pauline claims of Jesus'
>humanity. To refresh your memory I've included it below. Like all
>contradictory evidences you simply ignored it earlier. You gave a long post
>on Hebrews instead, which John DeGoes and others proceeded to shred for you
>by showing that it, too, references Christ's humanity.
I would say that John did nothing of the sort. He simply pointed to the
same old tired indicators that, given Gospel preconceptions, he and others
feel refer to an historical Gospel Jesus. John in fact had very little, if
anything, to say in rebuttal to my own counter-analyses of these passages,
such as the epistle's overall silence on the "voice" of the Gospel Son, or
the obvious heavenly context of "oikumene" in 1:6, or 2:3 as a picture of a
revelatory event, or the fact that every single so-called historical
reference in Hebrews is based, in one way or another, on a scriptural
passage (quite a phenomenon, don't you think?), and so on.
>Earl, do you suppose you could muster some of that intellect to reply to
>Ian's post now?
As Bill has pointed out, I have at various times responded to these
particular passages, including in the posting I just sent before this one.
On Romans 1 and Galatians 4 I will not repeat myself here (and will also
recommend a read of my Article No. 8, Christ as "Man", which deals with
these and other similar passages at considerable length:
>). Stevan has also obligingly
commented on many of them. But I will add a couple of comments of my own.
>son of God
>born of a descendant of David according to the flesh declared the son of God
>with power by the resurrection from the dead
Here I will simply stress what leads into this quote: "Paul...set apart for
the gospel of God, which he promised/announced beforehand through his
prophets in the holy writings, the gospel concerning his Son, who was...(of
David's stock, etc.) I can't envision a clearer statement that the
"information" Paul provides about the Son comes from God's gospel imbedded
in scripture. With that admission, all else is preconception.
>Jesus on the night he was betrayed took bread
>gave thanks, broke the bread
As Stevan has pointed out, all this info came by direct revelation from the
Lord himself, as 23a clearly announces. This in itself would imply that
such info was NOT available through apostolic tradition, else Paul would be
making an ass of himself by saying he got it from the Lord. (I discuss this
whole question in my Article 7, "The Source of Paul's Gospel".)
>though Christ was rich, for our sakes he became poor
Why not take these sentiments as non-literal? After all, when was Christ
ever "rich"? Instead, I would parallel them to the thought in the first
verses of the Phil. 2 hymn. From the richness of full divinity and equality
with God, Christ descended through the layers of heaven, taking on
increasingly lower forms and semblances, thus becoming "poorer".
One might compare a similar thought in Odes of Sol. 7:3f, and it is
telling that here the Odist is addressing God: "He has generously shown
himself to me in his simplicity / because his kindness has diminished his
grandeur." Here the Odist is not introducing any historical figure who
represents the form God has taken on. Rather, it is God himself who
undergoes the transformation; it is God to whom the poet is relating, not
Jesus. God, in approaching humanity with knowledge of himself allows
humanity to understand him by assuming human conceptions. All philosophers
believed that the true nature of God was utterly alien to anything the human
mind could comprehend, and so he had to "translate himself" into concepts
the material world was familiar with.
I regret not having more time to make a greater number of replies, and more
detailed ones, to the many comments that are being made (although I am sure
there are many on this list who are happy that this is so). Bill is correct
in suggesting that I have a life outside of HJ considerations, not the least
because there is a new lady in it--one who is of Persian extraction, leading
me to a mighty effort to learn the Persian language. And I thought Greek