Paul saw resurrection as a metaphor

[TruthSeeker]

Our local paper has a weekly religion column (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1074858204030&call_pageid=991479973472&col=991929131147). The last few weeks, the columnist has been writing about the use of myth and symbol in religion. Today, he finally comes out with Paul did not believe in a literal physical resurrection.

Here's the punchline:

Paul, whose genuine epistles date much earlier than the Gospels, never mentions an empty tomb. Why not? He knew nothing of it. For him, the resurrection was an entirely spiritual matter. He knew nothing of the later resurrection stories in the Gospels about Jesus eating fish or walking about talking to fishermen. All of that was added as the demand for a more literalistic, made-for-the-lowest-common-denominator version imposed itself upon the original story.

There are going to be letters!!!

I can't wait.

[lifegazer]

If Paul knew nothing of Jesus' life, and there was nothing special about that life - as you imply - then why would he even testify that he was the son of God, etc.?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If Paul knew nothing of Jesus' life, and there was nothing special about that life - as you imply - then why would he even testify that he was the son of God, etc.?

All mythical dying god-men were the 'son of god'. Nothing special there.

If you read Paul's letters - he really knew nothing of an historical Jesus. His Jesus was a mythic spirit. Why? Because Paul was a gnostic.

[Yahweh]

It seems no one respects the Biblical Revisionists...

[Checkmite]

According to the article, it's not that Paul didn't know about Jesus' life...it was his death (or, rather, the events following) that the old apostle seemed not to know about.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
According to the article, it's not that Paul didn't know about Jesus' life...it was his death (or, rather, the events following) that the old apostle seemed not to know about.

Not only didn't Paul know about Jesus' death - he didn't know about his life - which seems much more telling.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by triadboy
If you read Paul's letters - he really knew nothing of an historical Jesus. His Jesus was a mythic spirit. Why? Because Paul was a gnostic.
Or, he cared little about "an historical Jesus". Why? Because he was a gnostic.

If there was an historical Jesus, it is far from unreasonable to assume that Paul learned a good deal about him thru the so-called pillars of the Jerusalem church. The claim that he new nothing is a baseless assertion driven by dogma no less than the countervailing claims of the theist.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

Or, he cared little about "an historical Jesus". Why? Because he was a gnostic.

If there was an historical Jesus, it is far from unreasonable to assume that Paul learned a good deal about him thru the so-called pillars of the Jerusalem church. The claim that he new nothing is a baseless assertion driven by dogma no less than the countervailing claims of the theist.

If, as the xians assert, Paul (as the pillar of xianity) worshipped Jesus as god on earth - one would think a little bio would be in order. At least know some of Jesus' famous speeches like the Sermon on the Mount. Something? Anything?

Paul didn't know anything of Jesus, because the Jesus WE think he should know about didn't exist!

Gnostics didn't believe in a physical Jesus. They believed in a spiritual dying god-man - just like all the other mystery religions.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by triadboy


If, as the xians assert, Paul (as the pillar of xianity) worshipped Jesus as god on earth - one would think a little bio would be in order. At least know some of Jesus' famous speeches like the Sermon on the Mount. Something? Anything?

Paul didn't know anything of Jesus, because the Jesus WE think he should know about didn't exist!

Gnostics didn't believe in a physical Jesus. They believed in a spiritual dying god-man - just like all the other mystery religions.

Plus, they all kept dropping important bits of data so that all of their resultant information is suspect. For example, in 5:3 Matthew quotes Jesus as saying something to the effect that blessed are the poor of spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Yet that gets populrized as blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

So there you have it: one version, the official one, which literally is saying that only if you have a small ego can you figure out what the heck JC was trying to communicate versus the popularized version which says God wants us all to be poor.

What can you expect from a marketing campaign with a product launch where on the one hand you have James the Just who may be have been the brother of Jesus and in any case was the first Bishop of Jerusalem (the first Xian church) saying one set of things about Jesus, and on the other hand you have as one of JC's earliest super-star followers Paul who never met The Man.

Is that any way to start a religion? considering Christianity's success, apparently so. Which only goes to show that 21st century Neo-GNOSIS might have a chance.

[The idea]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Today, he finally comes out with Paul did not believe in a literal physical resurrection. There are going to be letters!!!

Here's a transcription of a debate that includes this topic:
Debate (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html)

Paul is not talking about a tomb here. He is simply talking about a man who died. Just like when Moses died, in Deuteronomy, he was thrown in a grave -- nobody knows where the grave was, somewhere in Moab -- yet Moses was seen resurrected bodily from the dead. Did you know that? But nobody assumes that therefore there must have been an empty tomb of Moses. Remember in Matthew 17, when Peter goes up into the mountain with Jesus, James, and John, and Jesus is transfigured, and suddenly, who does he see? Moses and Elijah. There he is. Are we to assume that there is an empty tomb of Moses because Peter saw Moses up there? Of course we don't assume that.