I outlined this argument from Tim O’Neill’s post with additional points and modifications here: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** I’ve also posted this on several Christian websites to see if there are any serious objections to it but haven’t seen any so far. Looking for suggestions on how to make the argument stronger so if you have anything to add please do. Thanks!
In the earliest reference to the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15.3-8, we read:
“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
Paul includes himself in his list of those to whom the risen Jesus “appeared”. He makes no distinction, but in fact equates, the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others. The Greek verb Paul uses for all these appearances he mentions is the same one – ὤφθη (Greek – ōphthē) meaning “appeared, was seen” – in each case.
“The choice of this word is significant because it does not necessarily imply the actual appearance of a person, but may only indicate an unusual phenomena…the use of the word ὤφθη in enumerating other visions in the Pauline lists…excludes such details as prolonged conversations, meals and resumption of ordinary life, on which the gospels dwell.” – Charles Guignebert, “Jesus” pg. 523
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. V, p. 358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception.” In other words, the “seeing” may not refer to actual sensory or mental perception. “The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself…they experienced his presence.”
There are many instances where it’s used of spiritual “visions”. For example: Acts 16:9-10 “And a vision appeared (ōphthē) to Paul in the night; there stood a man of Macedonia…And after he had seen the vision (horama), immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia”
Is there anyone who actually thinks the Macedonian man’s body was actually standing in front of Paul when he “appeared” to him?
Same thing in Mark 9:4/Matthew 17:1-3, Moses and Elijah “appeared” (ōphthē) to Peter. Did they physically appear? Should we start looking for their empty tombs as well?
The word is used in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT) to describe how the Lord God appeared to the patriarchs (e.g., to Jacob in a dream, in Gen 31:13). In the LXX stories that use this word, the emphasis is more on the presence of God and on its power to reveal than on the “reality” of the experience.
“When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the other in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent….It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven. This presence is in non-visionary reality; no category of human seeing is wholly adequate for it. On this ground, the appearances are to be described in the sense of revelation rather than making visible.“ – Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5 pg. 359
===================================
We know from the book of Acts, Paul’s description of his encounter on the Damascus road makes it clear that this was a vision – a light from heaven and a disembodied voice – not an encounter with a physically-revived former corpse returned to life.
Acts 9:3-8
“As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him….”
Acts 22:6-11
“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me….”
Acts 26:13-18
“About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions….”
Acts 26:19
“So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven.”
===================================
We also know that the companions of Paul did not see or hear the vision/voice properly. This indicates that the experience was, at least in some sense, subjective to Paul.
Acts 9:7
“The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.”
Acts 22:9
“My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.”
As far as the appearances go Paul makes no distinction, but in fact equates, the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others in 1 Cor 15. So if we’re to take the accounts in Acts 9:3-8, 22:6-11, 26:13-18 as historical then the appearances mentioned in 1 Cor 15 were originally understood to be “visionary” in nature. Acts also records Peter as having been susceptible to “visions” as in Acts 10.10-16. At the beginning, Luke says that ‘a trance came upon him’, and afterwards that he was perplexed at ‘what the vision which he had seen might be’ (Acts 10.17). Later, Peter begins to explain it, saying ‘I saw a vision in a trance’ (Acts 11.5). This makes Peter a particularly suitable candidate for ‘he [Jesus] appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve’ (1 Cor. 15.5).
So we have evidence that two of the eyewitnesses mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:5-8 were susceptible to having “visions”.
In the earliest manuscripts of gMark there are no resurrection appearances. In Matthew, only Jesus’ feet are mentioned and he appears on a mountaintop but “some doubted” (Matthew 28:17). In Luke and John the physical body is increasingly more emphasized. Also in John, the deity of Jesus is stressed which is nowhere mentioned in the synoptics. This seems to be clear evidence of a legend growing in the telling with the earliest beliefs being that of “visions” then to bodily encounters all the way up to Jesus being God in the flesh. If this story were actually true we would expect a lot more consistency than we get from the documents.
Keith Parsons notes that Paul uses ” ōphthē in Colossians 2:18 to denigrate false visions. “Apparently for Paul the important distinction was not between literal seeing and visionary saying, both of which could be veridical. The important distinction was between true and false visions.” Keith Parsons, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli On the Hallucination Theory, Robert M. Price & Jeffrey Jay Lowder, eds., The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave 433, 434 (Prometheus Books 2005).
Licona categorizes 29 occurrences of different verb forms of ὤφθη in Paul’s letters and 147 in Luke-Acts. Michael R Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus 330 (InterVarsity Press 2010). I do not read Greek, but I’m guessing that “ōphthē” is one of those verb forms.
Neither of these references contradict nor add much to your argument, but I thought you might be interested.
The time available for Paul’s conversion from opponent to proponent of Christianity is unreasonably short for such a drastic change unless he had some extraordinary experience. He does say that, when he was traveling to Damascus, a bright light flashed from the sky and he heard a voice. He fell to the ground and became blind for three days. His companions saw the light and heard a sound but did not recognize it as a voice.
The conventional hypothesis is that Paul experienced some sort of vision, but in that case how were his companions aware? Is there an alternative hypothesis involving a natural phenomenon which corresponds to the reports and the consequences? Indeed there is. It is something which everyone experiences to a mild degree and a few people, like Paul, experience acutely.
What actually happened is that as Paul was on the Golan Heights on his way to Damascus, he was nearly struck by lightning. He was literally thunderstruck and terrified. His thoughts at that moment became words in his mind. Jesus had sent him a message direct from heaven! He had revealed to Paul the secret that had been hidden from others, that he was actually divine and had come down to earth disguised as an ordinary human, and he had entrusted Paul with the task of revealing this to the world!
This then was the belief that Paul presented to the followers of Jesus. There was however a major problem, which was that if Jesus really was divine he could have saved himself from crucifixion. Since he did not do so, Paul concluded, he must have deliberately sacrificed himself. This idea, fundamental to Christianity, is from Paul, not from Jesus.
This hypothesis is in accordance with the gospels, Acts and epistles. It explains how the initial news about the resurrection could spread rapidly, since the report from the disciples that they had seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion was taken as a sign that the anticipated apocalypse was imminent. It explains why Paul suddenly changed his attitude and why he was so convinced that he had received a special message direct from Jesus in heaven. It also explains why he was at odds with the disciples in Jerusalem, why he makes so little reference to the life of Jesus in his epistles and why Paul’s Christ has so many similarities with Greek and Roman gods.
If this hypothesis is correct, then Christianity began not with the birth of a baby in Bethlehem but with a lightning strike on the Golan Heights.
Blackwell said
The time available for Paul’s conversion from opponent to proponent of Christianity is unreasonably short for such a drastic change unless he had some extraordinary experience. He does say that, when he was traveling to Damascus, a bright light flashed from the sky and he heard a voice. He fell to the ground and became blind for three days. His companions saw the light and heard a sound but did not recognize it as a voice.The conventional hypothesis is that Paul experienced some sort of vision, but in that case how were his companions aware? Is there an alternative hypothesis involving a natural phenomenon which corresponds to the reports and the consequences? Indeed there is. It is something which everyone experiences to a mild degree and a few people, like Paul, experience acutely.
What actually happened is that as Paul was on the Golan Heights on his way to Damascus, he was nearly struck by lightning. He was literally thunderstruck and terrified. His thoughts at that moment became words in his mind. Jesus had sent him a message direct from heaven! He had revealed to Paul the secret that had been hidden from others, that he was actually divine and had come down to earth disguised as an ordinary human, and he had entrusted Paul with the task of revealing this to the world!
This then was the belief that Paul presented to the followers of Jesus. There was however a major problem, which was that if Jesus really was divine he could have saved himself from crucifixion. Since he did not do so, Paul concluded, he must have deliberately sacrificed himself. This idea, fundamental to Christianity, is from Paul, not from Jesus.
This hypothesis is in accordance with the gospels, Acts and epistles. It explains how the initial news about the resurrection could spread rapidly, since the report from the disciples that they had seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion was taken as a sign that the anticipated apocalypse was imminent. It explains why Paul suddenly changed his attitude and why he was so convinced that he had received a special message direct from Jesus in heaven. It also explains why he was at odds with the disciples in Jerusalem, why he makes so little reference to the life of Jesus in his epistles and why Paul’s Christ has so many similarities with Greek and Roman gods.
If this hypothesis is correct, then Christianity began not with the birth of a baby in Bethlehem but with a lightning strike on the Golan Heights.
Is there any actual evidence beyond mere supposition or speculation for the lightening strike?
Blackwell said
What actually happened is that as Paul was on the Golan Heights on his way to Damascus, he was nearly struck by lightning. He was literally thunderstruck and terrified. His thoughts at that moment became words in his mind. Jesus had sent him a message direct from heaven! He had revealed to Paul the secret that had been hidden from others, that he was actually divine and had come down to earth disguised as an ordinary human, and he had entrusted Paul with the task of revealing this to the world!
This then was the belief that Paul presented to the followers of Jesus. There was however a major problem, which was that if Jesus really was divine he could have saved himself from crucifixion. Since he did not do so, Paul concluded, he must have deliberately sacrificed himself. This idea, fundamental to Christianity, is from Paul, not from Jesus.
This hypothesis is in accordance with the gospels, Acts and epistles. It explains how the initial news about the resurrection could spread rapidly, since the report from the disciples that they had seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion was taken as a sign that the anticipated apocalypse was imminent. It explains why Paul suddenly changed his attitude and why he was so convinced that he had received a special message direct from Jesus in heaven. It also explains why he was at odds with the disciples in Jerusalem, why he makes so little reference to the life of Jesus in his epistles and why Paul’s Christ has so many similarities with Greek and Roman gods.
If this hypothesis is correct, then Christianity began not with the birth of a baby in Bethlehem but with a lightning strike on the Golan Heights.
Interesting idea, but I think you need to explain those last few paragraphs a little more.
1) When you say your hypothesis, do you mean the idea of the lightning bolt or that Christianity is more from Paul instead of Jesus? The latter is a well known idea.
2) Why does it explain why Christianity spread so rapidly? The disciples were obviously drinking the koolaid, but what does that have to do with the rapid spread?
3) I assume you mean the lightning bolt is why Paul changed his attitude so rapidly. The result of the hypothetical lightning bolt—his conversion—- wouldn’t have caused his conversion to be fast or slow. He obviously rationalized things within, most likely, no more than 2 years, almost certainly far less than that since the events leading up to Stephen’s martyrdom had to occur first.
4) Why does your hypothesis (the lightning bolt? Christ’s divinity?) explain why Paul makes so little reference to the life of Jesus?
5) Why does it mean Jesus has so many similarities to other pantheons?
But the unspoken assumption here is that the so-called “Damascus Road experience” was a real thing. First of all in his actual letters all Paul ever says is that he was a persecutor of the early Christians who had a vision of Jesus and became a believer. All we have of a narrative is three contradictory accounts in the Acts of the Apostles, one of which claims to be given by Paul. Scholars have been questioning the accuracy of the Acts since it was possible to do so. For example, if you compare the view of Paul towards the Jerusalem community as revealed in his letters versus the relationship between them described in the Acts, you see how the author of Acts has done some buffing and polishing of his traditions.
After his “vision” (or was it a series of visions?) Paul goes to Arabia and returns to Damascus and only after three years does he go to Jerusalem for 15 days. It’s entirely possible Paul’s conversion was much more complicated that the “wam bam thank you ma’am” accounts in Acts.
Stephen said
But the unspoken assumption here is that the so-called “Damascus Road experience” was a real thing. First of all in his actual letters all Paul ever says is that he was a persecutor of the early Christians who had a vision of Jesus and became a believer. All we have of a narrative is three contradictory accounts in the Acts of the Apostles, one of which claims to be given by Paul. Scholars have been questioning the accuracy of the Acts since it was possible to do so. For example, if you compare the view of Paul towards the Jerusalem community as revealed in his letters versus the relationship between them described in the Acts, you see how the author of Acts has done some buffing and polishing of his traditions.After his “vision” (or was it a series of visions?) Paul goes to Arabia and returns to Damascus and only after three years does he go to Jerusalem for 15 days. It’s entirely possible Paul’s conversion was much more complicated that the “wam bam thank you ma’am” accounts in Acts.
Exactly, I’m not sure how once can claim to know something based on an account (in Acts) that Paul contradicts.
It’s entirely possible Paul’s conversion was much more complicated
I’ve always thought there was something to that idea. If the story in Acts is true, why disappear for 3 years? To be sure, Paul could have been fleeing the men in his group, fellow persecutors.
Things like time frame, appear to be entirely an artifact of the account given in Acts. Consequently, I don’t think one can make statements like “The time available for Paul’s conversion from opponent to proponent of Christianity is unreasonably short for such a drastic change”
Celsus:
Paul includes himself in his list of those to whom the risen Jesus “appeared”. He makes no distinction, but in fact equates, the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others.
Ok, I’m a bit dim. I’m having trouble following the whole equates the appearances… line of reasoning. Are you saying Paul believes they all had very similar experiences or that their experiences were equally significant?
“When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the other in 1 Cor 15:5…”
I don’t see how you can make that claim. Are we sure, Luke’s road to Damascus story is true or that Paul knew anything about it?
I think you have to drop the whole Acts storyline.
O neil seems to use too many terms as if they are the same I don’t think many people would accept the idea that Jesus was revified. It seems you have stayed away from his “rookie mistakes”
This might work better IF you dropped all the commentary and references to footnote level and simply layed out a clear definition of what you mean by a vision (Things like the Theological Dictionary etc etc ) or for that matter what the ppl in question may have had in mind.
“Paul’s account is of visions of a spiritual risen Jesus, whereas by the time the gospels are written, the story has become one of (in at least some sense) a corporeal resurrection with an empty tomb. “
It’s not clear at all that Paul thought of spiritual in the way the author does. Gary Habermas. convincingly explains that Paul believed in physical ressurection.
Some of the argument can be found here
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I am new to this and am not sure if I can reply to each comment separately so will make a combined posting.
Boltonian: Apart from descriptions in Acts, there are passages in the epistles which indicate that Paul thought he had received a special message direct from Jesus in heaven, for example Romans 15:15 and Romans 16:26. See also 2 Timothy 1:11-12 and Titus 1:2-3 and further comments below.
Greg Matthews: 1) The hypothesis is that the belief that Jesus was divine came from Paul as a result of a lightning strike.
2) This idea is alien to Jewish tradition and so is unlikely to have come from the disciples whereas Paul, with his Greek and Roman background, could have come to this conclusion. If the message from the disciples was simply that they had seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion, this would have spread more rapidly than if they also had to convince people that he was divine.
3) If Paul’s conversion had been a gradual realization that the Christians were correct and he was wrong to persecute them, this would have taken too long to fit other timings.
4) If Paul considered that his primary task was to convince people that Jesus was divine and had sacrificed himself then his life before crucifixion would have been less relevant. In any case, the people Paul was writing to knew as much about Jesus as Paul did.
5) If the divine Christ is Paul’s invention, he would have used his knowledge of Greek and Roman gods in developing his idea.
Stephen and Calcus: As noted above, Paul indicates in his epistles that he thought he had received a special message from Jesus. If he had not had some extraordinary experience, then he should have been much more sympathetic towards the disciples.
Spiker: Paul claims in 2 Corinthians 11:32 that King Aretas of the Nabateans, who died about 40CE, intended to arrest him for being a Christian. This, together with other events which need to be fitted in, puts an upper limit on time available for his conversion.
Blackwell said
I am new to this and am not sure if I can reply to each comment separately so will make a combined posting.Boltonian: Apart from descriptions in Acts, there are passages in the epistles which indicate that Paul thought he had received a special message direct from Jesus in heaven, for example Romans 15:15 and Romans 16:26. See also 2 Timothy 1:11-12 and Titus 1:2-3 and further comments below.
Greg Matthews: 1) The hypothesis is that the belief that Jesus was divine came from Paul as a result of a lightning strike.
2) This idea is alien to Jewish tradition and so is unlikely to have come from the disciples whereas Paul, with his Greek and Roman background, could have come to this conclusion. If the message from the disciples was simply that they had seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion, this would have spread more rapidly than if they also had to convince people that he was divine.
3) If Paul’s conversion had been a gradual realization that the Christians were correct and he was wrong to persecute them, this would have taken too long to fit other timings.
4) If Paul considered that his primary task was to convince people that Jesus was divine and had sacrificed himself then his life before crucifixion would have been less relevant. In any case, the people Paul was writing to knew as much about Jesus as Paul did.
5) If the divine Christ is Paul’s invention, he would have used his knowledge of Greek and Roman gods in developing his idea.
Stephen and Calcus: As noted above, Paul indicates in his epistles that he thought he had received a special message from Jesus. If he had not had some extraordinary experience, then he should have been much more sympathetic towards the disciples.
Spiker: Paul claims in 2 Corinthians 11:32 that King Aretas of the Nabateans, who died about 40CE, intended to arrest him for being a Christian. This, together with other events which need to be fitted in, puts an upper limit on time available for his conversion.
To quote someone you just press the quote button (it has the appearance of [” Quote] on the upper right of each message and is located immediately to the left of the 5 stars). You can quote multiple replies in a single response like this:
magpie said
Interesting! This is a version I have never heard of before, but I do think it would be a singular event and, if true, could not be invoked to explain anyone else’s visions.
So you see I quote both you and magpie in the same message. I just used her message because it was short.
Now, on to your reply…. If you haven’t already done so you really need to read Prof. Ehrman’s book “How Jesus Became God”. The entire book is literally a response to all of your questions. The entire spectrum of your questions is covered. A brief response to some of your responses:
2) Regarding the Jews not seeing Jesus as divine because it was an alien concept to the Jews:
This is not true. The Jews had a tradition of divinity aside from God. Angels were viewed as divine. Not just that, but some angels had come to earth from Heaven like “the Angel of the Lord”, Michael and Gabriel. By coming to earth there is a precedence for Jesus doing so. Some humans were exhalted and became divine (or at the very least half divine sort of like Greek demigods). The two humans who I know off the top of my head who were believed to have been bestowed divinity by God were Moses and Enoch. There might have been others, these are just the two I recall. There’s a whole chapter devoted to this issue in Bart’s book. Bart quotes Larry Hurtado at the end of the chapter “I propose the view that the principal angel speculation and other types of divine agency thinking…provided the earliest Christians with a basic scheme for accommodating the resurrected Christ next to God without having to depart from their monotheistic tradition.”
3) However you choose to interpret the time it took Paul to rationalize what happened to him it’s still virtually universally accepted that it took no more than 2 years for Paul’s conversion to take place after the crucifixion. I don’t think there’s any debate that it took Paul any length of time to rationalize what happened to him. Something major happened to him with his vision and he converted immediately. Sorry, but I don’t understand your point.
4) Paul considered his primary task to preach to Gentiles.
For a fuller treatment of your questions you really need to read Bart’s book. I’m sure it’s in paperback by now.
Blackwell said
Spiker: Paul claims in 2 Corinthians 11:32 that King Aretas of the Nabateans, who died about 40CE, intended to arrest him for being a Christian. This, together with other events which need to be fitted in, puts an upper limit on time available for his conversion.
One extreme to another, Blackwell? If it didn’t happen in 5 minutes it could’nt have happened in a longer time frame?
You based your entire asssesment of that timeframe on the description given in Acts and seem to have ignored Paul’s own
account. Even if Jesus was crucified in 33 and Paul converts in 35, then spends three years “in Arabia” You still have
another 2 years to play with. Of course, none of that was built into my objecting to the whole “unreasonably short” imbroglio:
Again your entire assessment is based on a time frame Paul contradicts.
According to Paul
** you do not have permission to see this link **Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.”
I’m not sure you can reconcile this with the treatment in Acts. The question remains what was he doing between
“when God, who had set me apart” and his trip to Jerusalem “three years later” It’s entirely reasonable that he spent this time trying to deal with his “new found faith” and what it meant.
As Stephen pointed out there may have been a series of visions (insights?)
A minor point that not everyone understands: “Arabia” was not Saudi Arabia, but rather what we’d think of as Jordan today. I think the Romans called it Aramaen Arabia or something like that. Some people think Paul was going walk about in the desert like Moses, but in reality he was out in a settled area possibly near Petra which was a major city back then.
I just wanted to point that out since I’ve seen Arabia mentioned a couple times here 
Greg Matthews said
A minor point that not everyone understands: “Arabia” was not Saudi Arabia, but rather what we’d think of as Jordan today.
Off-topic, but I may have the opportunity to visit Jordan this summer. My cousin is a visiting professor at the University of Jordan. Other than Petra, what would be interesting to visit there?
Lawyerskeptic said
Greg Matthews said
A minor point that not everyone understands: “Arabia” was not Saudi Arabia, but rather what we’d think of as Jordan today.Off-topic, but I may have the opportunity to visit Jordan this summer. My cousin is a visiting professor at the University of Jordan. Other than Petra, what would be interesting to visit there?
I got the name wrong, it was Arabia Petraea. I wish I knew where to go out there, but I’ve never visited the Middle East. I’ve had the impression from documentaries that Petra is out in the middle of nowhere, but I could be completely wrong about that.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Greg Matthews said
Blackwell said
I am new to this and am not sure if I can reply to each comment separately so will make a combined posting.Boltonian: Apart from descriptions in Acts, there are passages in the epistles which indicate that Paul thought he had received a special message direct from Jesus in heaven, for example Romans 15:15 and Romans 16:26. See also 2 Timothy 1:11-12 and Titus 1:2-3 and further comments below.
Greg Matthews: 1) The hypothesis is that the belief that Jesus was divine came from Paul as a result of a lightning strike.
2) This idea is alien to Jewish tradition and so is unlikely to have come from the disciples whereas Paul, with his Greek and Roman background, could have come to this conclusion. If the message from the disciples was simply that they had seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion, this would have spread more rapidly than if they also had to convince people that he was divine.
3) If Paul’s conversion had been a gradual realization that the Christians were correct and he was wrong to persecute them, this would have taken too long to fit other timings.
4) If Paul considered that his primary task was to convince people that Jesus was divine and had sacrificed himself then his life before crucifixion would have been less relevant. In any case, the people Paul was writing to knew as much about Jesus as Paul did.
5) If the divine Christ is Paul’s invention, he would have used his knowledge of Greek and Roman gods in developing his idea.
Stephen and Calcus: As noted above, Paul indicates in his epistles that he thought he had received a special message from Jesus. If he had not had some extraordinary experience, then he should have been much more sympathetic towards the disciples.
Spiker: Paul claims in 2 Corinthians 11:32 that King Aretas of the Nabateans, who died about 40CE, intended to arrest him for being a Christian. This, together with other events which need to be fitted in, puts an upper limit on time available for his conversion.
To quote someone you just press the quote button (it has the appearance of [” Quote] on the upper right of each message and is located immediately to the left of the 5 stars). You can quote multiple replies in a single response like this:
magpie said
Interesting! This is a version I have never heard of before, but I do think it would be a singular event and, if true, could not be invoked to explain anyone else’s visions.So you see I quote both you and magpie in the same message. I just used her message because it was short.
Now, on to your reply…. If you haven’t already done so you really need to read Prof. Ehrman’s book “How Jesus Became God”. The entire book is literally a response to all of your questions. The entire spectrum of your questions is covered. A brief response to some of your responses:
2) Regarding the Jews not seeing Jesus as divine because it was an alien concept to the Jews:
This is not true. The Jews had a tradition of divinity aside from God. Angels were viewed as divine. Not just that, but some angels had come to earth from Heaven like “the Angel of the Lord”, Michael and Gabriel. By coming to earth there is a precedence for Jesus doing so. Some humans were exhalted and became divine (or at the very least half divine sort of like Greek demigods). The two humans who I know off the top of my head who were believed to have been bestowed divinity by God were Moses and Enoch. There might have been others, these are just the two I recall. There’s a whole chapter devoted to this issue in Bart’s book. Bart quotes Larry Hurtado at the end of the chapter “I propose the view that the principal angel speculation and other types of divine agency thinking…provided the earliest Christians with a basic scheme for accommodating the resurrected Christ next to God without having to depart from their monotheistic tr addition.”
3) However you choose to interpret the time it took Paul to rationalize what happened to him it’s still virtually universally accepted that it took no more than 2 years for Paul’s conversion to take place after the crucifixion. I don’t think there’s any debate that it took Paul any length of time to rationalize what happened to him. Something major happened to him with his vision and he converted immediately. Sorry, but I don’t understand your point.
4) Paul considered his primary task to preach to Gentiles.
For a fuller treatment of your questions you really need to read Bart’s book. I’m sure it’s in paperback by now.
Yes, I have read Prof Ehrman’s book and the very reason that I entered this discussion is because, for reasons mentioned previously, I disagree with his claim that the disciples believed that Jesus was divine and had been exalted to heaven, rather than that they simply believed that he had been resurrected. Where is the evidence for this claim?
Jews, of course, accepted a range of spiritual beings just like Christians today, but there is a vast difference between bestowing divinity on humans like Moses and Enoch (like sainthood today) and claiming that someone was not actually human at all but was a manifestation (the Word made flesh) of a supreme God. Just think of your favorite character from history. Would you ever claim that they were actually God in disguise? That is what Paul claims for Jesus, which is the foundation for Christianity. He could think that way because that is what Greek and Roman gods did all the time.
You say that something major happened to Paul with his vision. What was this “something”?
I suggest that it was a near miss by a lightning strike.
Blackwell said
Yes, I have read Prof Ehrman’s book and the very reason that I entered this discussion is because, for reasons mentioned previously, I disagree with his claim that the disciples believed that Jesus was divine and had been exalted to heaven
Not sure, Blackwell, but I don’t think Ehrman makes this claim. If I’m not mistaken he talks about earliest christology saw Jesus as a man, who becomes divine by exhaltation. Can you cite the relevant passages. I have HDJBG so you don’t have to copy down paragraghs, just cite the relevant pages
Blackwell said
You say that something major happened to Paul with his vision. What was this “something”?
I suggest that it was a near miss by a lightning strike.
“Something” is just “something”. I make no claim what it is. A stroke? A fever? A seizure? Fevered dreams while he was sick? A bolt of lightning?
I don’t know. You posit lightning. Everything under the sun has been suggested for what it might have been.
Blackwell said
Stephen and Calcus [sic]: As noted above, Paul indicates in his epistles that he thought he had received a special message from Jesus. If he had not had some extraordinary experience, then he should have been much more sympathetic towards the disciples.
I didn’t deny that Paul had an “extraordinary” experience. He says as much. I just questioned whether or not it was as cut and dried as the accounts in ACTS. There’s just a lot of this stuff we’ll never know. Past a certain point it’s useless to speculate. What we have are the literary sources available to us sparse as they are. The desire to fill in the gaps is understandable but ultimately we have to admit what we don’t know.
spiker said
Blackwell said
Yes, I have read Prof Ehrman’s book and the very reason that I entered this discussion is because, for reasons mentioned previously, I disagree with his claim that the disciples believed that Jesus was divine and had been exalted to heaven
Not sure, Blackwell, but I don’t think Ehrman makes this claim. If I’m not mistaken he talks about earliest christology saw Jesus as a man, who becomes divine by exhaltation. Can you cite the relevant passages. I have HDJBG so you don’t have to copy down paragraghs, just cite the relevant pages
spiker said
Blackwell said
Yes, I have read Prof Ehrman’s book and the very reason that I entered this discussion is because, for reasons mentioned previously, I disagree with his claim that the disciples believed that Jesus was divine and had been exalted to heaven
Not sure, Blackwell, but I don’t think Ehrman makes this claim. If I’m not mistaken he talks about earliest christology saw Jesus as a man, who becomes divine by exhaltation. Can you cite the relevant passages. I have HDJBG so you don’t have to copy down paragraghs, just cite the relevant pages
Page 174, under “The Belief of the disciples” and Page 205 under “The Outcome of faith”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)