Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[RoadRunner79]

I don't actually see what roady's objection to the argument from silence is.  Granted, Paul's mission was not spreading the gospel, but all the same, the lack of detail about Jesus' life is stunning.

The argument from silence is a fallacy, unless it is well supported that the person should have spoke about the subject, and could not have done otherwise. 

In this particular version, the statement is made, that Paul wrote to the Romans to tell them all about Jesus, and then does not tell us anything about Jesus.  If the assumption is that a book is talking about X, and when we read the book, we find that it is not all about X.  The logical conclusion to me, is that initial expectations where incorrect.  A popular reasoning, for why Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, was to show them two things.   That he believed the same as they did, and that he had something to offer by way of teaching them.   There was already a Church, and they already believed the Gospel.

The second assumption is that Paul didn't write about Jesus.  This is just false.  

Is it true that Paul only mentioned Jesus “occasionally” and never referred to Him as a flesh and blood human being? Certainly not. In fact, it is amazing that Harpur could make such an outlandish, unscriptural claim and still have his book published by anyone familiar in the least with Paul’s writings.

The fact of the matter is Paul often spoke of Jesus in terms that cannot be understood correctly in any way other than as a historical, flesh-and-blood human being. Paul used the name “Jesus” 218 times in his writings (Strong, 2001, p. 453), not counting other names for Jesus like Christ or Lord. For Harpur to say Paul “occasionally” mentioned Jesus is outright dishonesty. Paul used the name Jesus five times in the first eight verses of Romans, seven times in the single-chapter book of Philemon, and 22 times in the brief, four-chapter book of Philippians. An honest account of Paul’s writings shows that they are replete with Jesus’ name, containing it an average of two and a half times per chapter.
http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?ca...ticle=2836

A quick search myself, shows that the Name "Jesus" occurs 181 times in Romans alone.  The next claim is that Paul didn't mention anything which places Jesus on earth (the celestrial Jesus theory).   There is no reason to believe this, that is not begging the question, and it too is false.  In 1 Tim 2:5 Paul calls Jesus the one mediator between the God and man, the man Jesus Christ.  In Philippians 2:5, we are told of Jesus be in the form of God, and coming in the likeness and appearance of man. 1 Tim 6:13 tells us that Jesus testified before Pontius Pilate.  Phil. 2:8 and Colosians2:14 tells us, that he died on the cross.  In 1 Cor 15:6, Paul tells us that over 500 witnesses seen the Lord Jesus after his resurrection at one time.  In Galations he talks about James "the Lord's brother".  And Romans 1:3 refers to him as a human descendant of King David and born of a woman Gal. 4:4

While this idea is strangely popular amongst internet atheists who have never studied the material, pretty much every scholar on the planet thinks it's hogwash ...


This silence makes no sense.

Unless, of course, this whole "mythic Jesus Christianity" is a figment of Doherty's speculations and didn't exist at all. Then the silence about it in the sources makes perfect sense.

So it's pretty clear why Doherty's thesis gets no traction in the academic sphere and is regarded as a flawed theory by an enthusiastic amateur. The idea that Paul didn't believe that Jesus had been a real, historical person simply doesn't work.

Tim O' Neil

However, let's ignore all the evidence to the contrary for a moment. If Paul's epistles only referred to how the Church should conduct itself, and how to live a Christian life; it still doesn't follow that Paul didn't know about Jesus, or that he believed in some "celestial Jesus". This is an unnecessary interjection which isn't supported by anything historical Plus you also have Luke's Gospel, who had close connection to Paul and the early Church shows support for Paul, with the Early Church Fathers, quoting his letters. There is no reason to believe that he had a different belief from the rest of them.