The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

.... the fact is you were and are WRONG. G-1:17 does NOT say that anyone had named Jesus as the christ before Paul did.

Again, you write fiction.

You seem to have no understanding that the "Apostles" in Galatians refer to the Apostles of CHRIST.

You seem to have no understanding of the context of Galatians 1.17.

In order to understand Galatians 1.17 you must also read what is written BEFORE and AFTER.

The Galatians writer has implied that the Apostles of CHRIST BEFORE him in Jerusalem had information about Jesus the Christ, the Son of God.


Galatians 1

15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

You cannot show that Apostles before the Galatians writer did NOT name Jesus as the Christ

You cannot show that the Epistle to the Galatians was written c 50-60 CE.

You cannot show that the Epistle to Galatians was written before gLuke.

All existing manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are dated to the 2nd century or later.

I can show you that Apologetic writers claimed the Pauline writers KNEW the Gospel according to Luke.

Origen's Commentary on Matthew

And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.

Church History 6

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew......... And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts.

 

[dejudge]

There is a lot of internal evidence in the NT Canon itself to show that the Pauline Corpus are anti-Marcionite teachings and was invented AFTER the Jesus story was known and composed.

It is an extremely simple matter to show that any event or account about Jesus that is found both in the Pauline Corpus and the Gospels, especially the SHORT gMark, that the account in the Pauline Corpus will ALWAYS be the LATER version or UNKNOWN to the authors of the Gospel.

It has already been shown that the version of the Last Supper in the Pauline Corpus is a LATER version that those in the short gMark and gMatthew.

Now, examine the POST Resurrection accounts in the Pauline Corpus and the Gospels.

This is a piece of cake.

The Post Resurrection version in the Pauline Corpus is FAR LATER than the versions in short gMark and gMatthew.

1. In the short gMark 16, NONE of the women visitors was seen of the resurrected Jesus and the disciples were NOT told that Jesus was raised from the dead.

2. In gMatthew 28 , the women visitors was seen of Jesus and the disciple was seen of Jesus ONCE in a high mountain in Galilee.

3. In 1 Corinthians 15 it is claimed OVER 500 persons at ONCE was seen of Jesus with Multiple visits by Jesus, inlcuding Cephas, James, the disciples, the Apostles and Paul.

The Pauline Corpus version of the Post-Resurrection visits by Jesus were FABRICATED after the short gMark and gMatthew

The authors of the short gMark and gMatthew did NOT know of the Pauline post-resurrection story.

 

[maximara]

I don't take the idea that Paul was fabricated in the second to fourth centuries by "Hoax Forgers" at all seriously. Especially when it is based on dejudge's insistence that the oldest extant manuscripts prove that the Pauline corpus was composed no earlier than 180 CE.

I agree with this. As I have asked before what is this seeming obsession some Christ Myther have with claiming Paul is a fictional creation?

Despite supposedly meeting Peter and James "brother" of the Lord, Paul gives no real details of Jesus. Everything we get are these vague generalities that might as well being a cold reading by a palm reader.

And even those at times conflict. For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:8 Paul claimes that Jesus was crucified by the "rulers of this age" ie Romans but in 1 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul says it was the Jews who killed Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

Despite supposedly meeting Peter and James "brother" of the Lord, Paul gives no real details of Jesus. Everything we get are these vague generalities that might as well being a cold reading by a palm reader.

That, it seems to me, is the overwhelmingly significant point. Paul's resurrected Jesus is a mere "appearance"; as it may be a light and a voice. That's all it was for him, and he doesn't tell us anything different about the earlier visions experienced by others. No angels at tombs; no wandering resurrected saints; no fish fry up in Galilee; no sticking hands in wounds.

All these physicalities in the Gospels are later elaborations and demonstrate not a late, but a very early, date for Paul's contribution.

It is highly significant that the mythicists, denying any historical reality for Jesus, are tempted to deny the existence of Paul too. No surviving mid first century source for which we have mid first century manuscripts says "I saw him writing letters to the Corinthians", so he couldn't have written any letters to the Corinthians. And when you object you're called a Bible-thumping fundie. Crazy stuff.

 

[dejudge]

I agree with this. As I have asked before what is this seeming obsession some Christ Myther have with claiming Paul is a fictional creation?

What an absurd statement!! What propaganda!!

Anyone familiar with Scholarship would know that the historicity of Paul has ALREADY been abandoned over 100 years ago by the movement called "Radical Criticism".

There is ZERO contemporary historical data for Paul and NO manuscripts of the Pauline letters have been dated to the 1st century pre 70 CE.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_criticism

Radical Criticism is a movement around the late 19th century that, typically, denied authentic authorship of the Pauline epistles..................The Dutch school of radical criticism started in 1878 with a publication by Allard Pierson, who denied Pauline authorship of Galatians.

He was fiercely attacked by his colleague A. D. Loman, but two years later also Loman abandoned the historicity of Paul.

Similarly, W.C. van Manen, who had written a doctoral thesis defending the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians, wrote in 1889 that he had come to the same conclusions as Loman.

Also the philosopher G. J. P. J. Bolland was a part of this movement.[1] .............This research led them to the conclusion that we do not have any authentic Pauline epistles."

NO-ONE today, 8th December 2014, [scholar or not] can provide any actual evidence from antiquity for the historicity of Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews of the tribe of Benjamin and NO-ONE today [scholar or not] can show that any letter in the Pauline Corpus was actually composed before c 61 CE or up to the time Festus was governor of Judea.

There is simply NO authentic Pauline letters.

NO-ONE, NOBODY, NO Scholar, NO amateur today can produce evidence to counter the conclusion that we do NOT have any authentic Pauline Corpus.

There never was. The PAULINE authors are from the 2nd century or later.

The Pauline Corpus are 2nd century or later Anti-Marcionite writings which were UNKNOWN to the authors of the short gMark, gMatthew, the author of Acts, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Miuncius Felix, Arnobius and Non-apologetic writer called Celsus.

 

[maximara]

That, it seems to me, is the overwhelmingly significant point. Paul's resurrected Jesus is a mere "appearance"; as it may be a light and a voice. That's all it was for him, and he doesn't tell us anything different about the earlier visions experienced by others. No angels at tombs; no wandering resurrected saints; no fish fry up in Galilee; no sticking hands in wounds.

All these physicalities in the Gospels are later elaborations and demonstrate not a late, but a very early, date for Paul's contribution.

It is highly significant that the mythicists, denying any historical reality for Jesus, are tempted to deny the existence of Paul too. No surviving mid first century source for which we have mid first century manuscripts says "I saw him writing letters to the Corinthians", so he couldn't have written any letters to the Corinthians. And when you object you're called a Bible-thumping fundie. Crazy stuff.

The old guard mythicists generally didn't do that. Heck, even Joseph Wheless' Forgery In Christianity who saw Christianity as a mammoth forgery factory accepted Paul's letters as being written in the 50s-60s time period.

It should be noted that whole Paul didn't exist comes from the aptly named Radical Dutch school of the 1870s to 1880s and had been relegated to the fringes of the Christ Myth theory by the beginning of the 20th century.

 

[ericbwonder]

And even those at times conflict. For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:8 Paul claimes that Jesus was crucified by the "rulers of this age" ie Romans but in 1 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul says it was the Jews who killed Jesus.

Why couldn't 'rulers of the age' comprise both Romans and Judeans (its rulers being client leaders of Rome)? I can't see any reason for thinking there's a genuine conflict here, unless you just absolutely wanted there to be one.

 

[dejudge]

The old guard mythicists generally didn't do that. Heck, even Joseph Wheless' Forgery In Christianity who saw Christianity as a mammoth forgery factory accepted Paul's letters as being written in the 50s-60s time period.

It should be noted that whole Paul didn't exist comes from the aptly named Radical Dutch school of the 1870s to 1880s and had been relegated to the fringes of the Christ Myth theory by the beginning of the 20th century.

As expected your post does NOT and cannot offer any evidence from antiquity to counter the conclusion that letters of the Pauline Corpus are NOT authentic and that the Pauline writers were not figures of history in the time of Aretas.

You don't understand the whole "Paul EXIST" has ALREADY been RELEGATED to the Dustbin of history as crank theories since the 1870-1880's.

You don't understand that the claim today that Pauline letters are authentic has ALREADY been shown to be completely flawed since the 1870-1880.

NO-ONE, NOBODY, NO Scholar [Christian or Not], No Amateur [Atheist or Not] can present any contemporary evidence today for PAUL and the Pauline Corpus.

It is also most amusing when you attempt to play the "fringe theory" game.

Atheist don't play the "fringe theory" game.

Atheist do not deal with numbers. They deal DIRECTLY with evidence.

Atheist WANT to see the evidence from antiquity for GOD, JESUS and Paul.

There is NONE.

God, Jesus and Paul are figures of fiction and mythology UNTIL, UNTIL, UNTIL historical data can be found.

 

[Brainache]

As expected your post does NOT and cannot offer any evidence from antiquity to counter the conclusion that letters of the Pauline Corpus are NOT authentic and that the Pauline writers were not figures of history in the time of Aretas.

You don't understand the whole "Paul EXIST" has ALREADY been RELEGATED to the Dustbin of history as crank theories since the 1870-1880's.

You don't understand that the claim today that Pauline letters are authentic has ALREADY been shown to be completely flawed since the 1870-1880.

NO-ONE, NOBODY, NO Scholar [Christian or Not], No Amateur [Atheist or Not] can present any contemporary evidence today for PAUL and the Pauline Corpus.

It is also most amusing when you attempt to play the "fringe theory" game.

Atheist don't play the "fringe theory" game.

Atheist do not deal with numbers. They deal DIRECTLY with evidence.

Atheist WANT to see the evidence from antiquity for GOD, JESUS and Paul.

There is NONE.

God, Jesus and Paul are figures of fiction and mythology UNTIL, UNTIL, UNTIL historical data can be found.

No one here is looking for "God". The HJ is not God, nor is he the miraculous Son Of God. If he existed at all, he was a Jewish religious teacher. That's all.

Without an HJ, we are left with many questions about the beginnings of Christianity and removing Paul from the picture just raises more questions.

With no Jesus and no Paul, how do you explain the existence and spread of Christianity? How did it reach the state that it did in the second to fourth centuries when someone supposedly forged the whole Pauline corpus? How did the churches in Corinth and Galatia and Thessalonica etc come about? Where did they get their theology that was so different to that practised in the east? Who spread that particular version of "The Word" to those places? etc etc...

Your continued insistence on the fictional nature of Jesus and Paul gets us nowhere in trying to answer these questions of History. It is useless.

 

[maximara]

No one here is looking for "God". The HJ is not God, nor is he the miraculous Son Of God. If he existed at all, he was a Jewish religious teacher. That's all.

Right, and this is what Carrier meant when he wrote "Either side of the historicity debate will at times engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as if this refuted the reductive theory (as if that were valid)

In fact, Remsberg in 1909, Rudolf Bultmann in 1941 and Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in 2004 all have said there were two historical Jesuses being kicked around:

Reductive theory (Remsburg's Jesus of Nazareth): "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him" rather than being a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who

Triumphalist theory (Remsberg's Jesus of Bethlehem): "The Gospels are totally or almost totally true" rather than being works of imagination like those of King Arthur.

Without an HJ, we are left with many questions about the beginnings of Christianity and removing Paul from the picture just raises more questions.

Actually there are not that many questions raised without a HJ though removing Paul just adds an unneeded complication.

With no Jesus and no Paul, how do you explain the existence and spread of Christianity?

Ned Ludd and the Luddites and the various Malaysian Cargo cults who name people who in no way founded them provide such explanations as has been repeatedly stated.

King Arthur and Robin Hood provide other explanations to how you could have Christianity and "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" something that has also been repeatedly stated.

There are alternatives to a HJ. Repeatedly ignoring them is not going to make these counter examples go away.

 

[Brainache]

...
Ned Ludd and the Luddites and the various Malaysian Cargo cults who name people who in no way founded them provide such explanations as has been repeatedly stated.

King Arthur and Robin Hood provide other explanations to how you could have Christianity and "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" something that has also been repeatedly stated.

There are alternatives to a HJ. Repeatedly ignoring them is not going to make these counter examples go away.

Then this is the point where Scholars have to start analysing the ancient texts to look for things like multiple attestation and the substance of the teachings ascribed to this "Jesus" character.

Just an example from my admittedly amateur readings might be something like comparing the synoptic gospels with gnostic gospels like gThomas and gJudas. What are the similarities/differences? When/where were they composed and by whom? Do they all share a common written source? etc...

We can look at early church and secular Histories to learn the specifics of the spread of various ideas of the religion.

Just saying "John Frum" or "Ned Ludd" as if that answered anything about this particular religion is not satisfactory. They came from very different cultural traditions and historical contexts.

 

[IanS]

Again, you write fiction.

You seem to have no understanding that the "Apostles" in Galatians refer to the Apostles of CHRIST.

You seem to have no understanding of the context of Galatians 1.17.

In order to understand Galatians 1.17 you must also read what is written BEFORE and AFTER.

The Galatians writer has implied that the Apostles of CHRIST BEFORE him in Jerusalem had information about Jesus the Christ, the Son of God.


Galatians 1

You cannot show that Apostles before the Galatians writer did NOT name Jesus as the Christ

You cannot show that the Epistle to the Galatians was written c 50-60 CE.

You cannot show that the Epistle to Galatians was written before gLuke.

All existing manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are dated to the 2nd century or later.

I can show you that Apologetic writers claimed the Pauline writers KNEW the Gospel according to Luke.

Origen's Commentary on Matthew

Church History 6

Cut the crap.

Quote where Galatians 1:17 says a Church of God preached that Jesus was the messiah before Paul named Jesus.

Just quote Galatians 1:17 saying that !

Quote it !!

 

[Craig B]

Cut the crap.

Quote where Galatians 1:17 says a Church of God preached that Jesus was the messiah before Paul named Jesus.

Just quote Galatians 1:17 saying that !

Quote it !!

Dejudge is getting "the treatment" now? I think your approach is not the best way to elicit from people a reasoned expression of their true opinion. There are good reasons, comparing one text with another, to suggest that others before Paul had identified Jesus as the Messiah.

 

[Craig B]

Just saying "John Frum" or "Ned Ludd" as if that answered anything about this particular religion is not satisfactory. They came from very different cultural traditions and historical contexts.

I hope others may heed these wise words!

 

[maximara]

Then this is the point where Scholars have to start analysing the ancient texts to look for things like multiple attestation and the substance of the teachings ascribed to this "Jesus" character.

Just an example from my admittedly amateur readings might be something like comparing the synoptic gospels with gnostic gospels like gThomas and gJudas. What are the similarities/differences? When/where were they composed and by whom? Do they all share a common written source? etc...

We can look at early church and secular Histories to learn the specifics of the spread of various ideas of the religion.

Just saying "John Frum" or "Ned Ludd" as if that answered anything about this particular religion is not satisfactory. They came from very different cultural traditions and historical contexts.

This ignores how the Synthesis historical reasoning part of the historical method works.

"Further supporting the previous element is the fact that what are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them." (Carrier, Richard (2014) Element 29 On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 159)

"Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed. [...] John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all." (Dawkins Richard (2006) The God Delusion pgs 202-203)

"Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum." (Worsley, Peter (1957) The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of "Cargo" Cults in Melanesia London: Macgibbon & Kee pp. 153–9.)

As Carrier states (quoting IC Jarvie): "One of the most remarkable things about apocalyptic millenarian movements [like the Cargo Cults] is, that despite the fact that they crop up at all periods of history, in all parts of the world, and in all sort of different social set-ups, we can find remarkable similarities between them."


As I mentioned before Carrier cites Peter Worsley through out Element 29: In fact, several documented cases things that were seen in visions or merely prophesies were later believed to have historically happened, within just fifteen years (some ideas originating in 1919 became fully historicized belief by 1934), demonstrating rapid legendary development (Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound pp 90-91)"


The Gospels are generally thought to written after the 70 CE The Great Revolt but strangely no Church Father started quoting anything from then until after c130 CE which is when the Bar Kokhba revolt was going on and the first attempt at a Christian bible was c140 CE

Then you have the strange gaps that the Christians copyists themselves have created:

* On Superstition by Seneca the Younger c40 - c62: covered every cult in Rome and yet the only reason we know it did NOT talk about Christianity at all is Augustine in the 4th century complained about it; which if it was closer to the 40 than the 62 doesn't make sense.

* Three of the five books that made up Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE): the volume that covered Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea in detail at best survives as mangled fragments and NONE of it mentions Jesus.

* Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero

* Pliny the Elder's history of Rome from 31 to then present day (sometime before his death in 79) with a volume for each year.

* Annals of Tacitus: entire section covering 29-31 CE is missing

* Cassius Dio's Roman History - sections covering 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE are missing.

* EVERY work critical of Christianity; all we have is what the Christians claim was in them and that is suspect.

If any of these works mentioned Jesus why didn't the Christians take the pains to preserve them or even mention them as source materical?

 

[maximara]

Then this is the point where Scholars have to start analysing the ancient texts to look for things like multiple attestation and the substance of the teachings ascribed to this "Jesus" character.

Just an example from my admittedly amateur readings might be something like comparing the synoptic gospels with gnostic gospels like gThomas and gJudas. What are the similarities/differences? When/where were they composed and by whom? Do they all share a common written source? etc...

We can look at early church and secular Histories to learn the specifics of the spread of various ideas of the religion.

Just saying "John Frum" or "Ned Ludd" as if that answered anything about this particular religion is not satisfactory. They came from very different cultural traditions and historical contexts.

This ignores how the Synthesis historical reasoning part of the historical method works.

"Further supporting the previous element is the fact that what are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them." (Carrier, Richard (2014) Element 29 On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 159)

"Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed. [...] John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all." (Dawkins Richard (2006) The God Delusion pgs 202-203)

"Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum." (Worsley, Peter (1957) The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of "Cargo" Cults in Melanesia London: Macgibbon & Kee pp. 153–9.)

As Carrier states (quoting IC Jarvie): "One of the most remarkable things about apocalyptic millenarian movements [like the Cargo Cults] is, that despite the fact that they crop up at all periods of history, in all parts of the world, and in all sort of different social set-ups, we can find remarkable similarities between them."


As I mentioned before Carrier cites Peter Worsley through out Element 29: In fact, several documented cases things that were seen in visions or merely prophesies were later believed to have historically happened, within just fifteen years (some ideas originating in 1919 became fully historicized belief by 1934), demonstrating rapid legendary development (Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound pp 90-91)"

In fact, as I mentioned before Carrier is basing his comparison on the work of social anthropologist Peter Worsley and those of three other anthropologists to build his case.


The Gospels are generally thought to written after the 70 CE The Great Revolt but strangely no Church Father started quoting anything from then until after c130 CE which is when the Bar Kokhba revolt was going on and the first attempt at a Christian bible was c140 CE

Then you have the strange gaps that the Christians copyists themselves have created:

* On Superstition by Seneca the Younger c40 - c62: covered every cult in Rome and yet the only reason we know it did NOT talk about Christianity at all is Augustine in the 4th century complained about it; which if it was closer to the 40 than the 62 doesn't make sense.

* Three of the five books that made up Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE): the volume that covered Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea in detail at best survives as mangled fragments and NONE of it mentions Jesus.

* Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero

* Pliny the Elder's history of Rome from 31 to then present day (sometime before his death in 79) with a volume for each year.

* Annals of Tacitus: entire section covering 29-31 CE is missing

* Cassius Dio's Roman History - sections covering 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE are missing.

* EVERY work critical of Christianity; all we have is what the Christians claim was in them and that is suspect.

If any of these works mentioned Jesus why didn't the Christians take the pains to preserve them or even mention them as source materical?

 

[dejudge]

No one here is looking for "God". The HJ is not God, nor is he the miraculous Son Of God. If he existed at all, he was a Jewish religious teacher. That's all.

What complete absurdity. What fiction!! There are two arguments HERE.

1. Jesus was a figure of mythology.

2. Jesus was a figure of history

People here and even Scholars today are arguing that Jesus in the NT was a figure of mythology.

People here and even Scholars today have presented the evidence from antiquity that Jesus of the NT NEVER had any real existence. In ALL existing manuscripts and Codices Jesus is described as a figure of Fiction and Mythology

People here and even Scolars who argue for an HJ have NEVER and cannot presented any contemporary historical data to support their argument.

In fact, those who argue for an HJ have DISCREDITED their sources for their HJ and have admitted Paul of the NT was a Liar or a conman or had Auditory hallucinations and may have been a Nut in reality.

A Pauline writer admitted Jesus, the Son of God, was revealed to him AFTER CONFERENCE WITHOUT Flesh and Blood.

In addition, the existing Pauline Corpus are all dated NO earlier the 2nd century or later.

The Existing Pauline Corpus stories about Jesus the Son of God is CONFIRMED as Useless Mythology and Fiction.

Without an HJ, we are left with many questions about the beginnings of Christianity and removing Paul from the picture just raises more questions.

You argue that Paul was a LIAR or a conman so you have MANY QUESTIONS to answer.

Why have you used 2nd century or later writings with KNOWN LIES to argue for an HJ?

Why are you arguing that Paul of the NT was an Herodian when it is claimed he was a Jew and a Hebrew of Hebrews of the tribe of Benjamin?

Why are you arguing that Jesus was a figure of history when ALL Christian writers of antiquity who mentioned the birth or origin of Jesus claimed he was born of a Ghost and a woman or was GOD from the beginning?

WITHOUT question, Jesus is described as a God in the NT and ALL existing manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus.

With no Jesus and no Paul, how do you explain the existence and spread of Christianity?

With NO Jewish God how do you explain the Jewish religion?

With NO Jewish God how do you explain the spread of the Jewish religion?

It is rather easy to explain.

People of antiquity and even today believe Mythology is history.

People of antiquity and even today believe the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

Even Atheists today believe the NT is a credible historical AFTER admitting the same NT is riddled with LIES, and supernatural events.

How did it reach the state that it did in the second to fourth centuries when someone supposedly forged the whole Pauline corpus?

Again, you write fiction. Scholars today have deduced that there were MULTIPLE authors under the name of Paul.

The Anonymous authors of the Epistles to Timothy were NOT the authors of the Epistles to Corinthians.

The Anonymous author of the Epistle to Titus was NOT the author of the Epistles to the Romans.

The Anonymous author of the Epistle to the Ephesians was NOT the author of Philippians.

The Anonymous author of 2 Thessalonians was NOT the author of 1 Thessalonians.

NO-ONE, NOBODY, NO Scholar [Christian or not], NO Amateur [Atheist or NOT] can present a shred of comtemporary evidence for Jesus and Paul in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

How did the churches in Corinth and Galatia and Thessalonica etc come about? Where did they get their theology that was so different to that practised in the east? Who spread that particular version of "The Word" to those places? etc etc...

You forgot you admitted your Paul was a Liar or a Con man.

It becomes obvious that the Pauline Corpus is a pack of lies.

Up to the late 2nd century Christian and Non Apologetic writers knew NOTHING of Paul, the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline Churches.

Please, tell us how did the EPHESIANS Church come about if Paul did NOT write the Epistle to the Ephesians?

The Epistle to the Ephesians is a PERFECT example of letters to FAKE CHURCHES.

Your continued insistence on the fictional nature of Jesus and Paul gets us nowhere in trying to answer these questions of History. It is useless.

Your admittance that Paul was a LIAR or Con-man and exposing the fiction in the NT is rather USELESS for the HJ argument.

As soon as you discredited your sources for your HJ then your argument was DEAD out of the water.

You are unable and have never been able to present any credible or contemporary sources for the HJ argument.

In fact, NO-ONE, NOBODY, NO Scholar, NO Amateur can present credible and contemporary evidence for Jesus, Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

All we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts and Codices riddled with forgeries, false attribution, LIES, Fiction, discrepancies, historical problems and events that did NOT and could NOT have happened.

 

[Craig B]

This ignores how the Synthesis historical reasoning part of the historical method works.

"Further supporting the previous element is the fact that what are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them." (Carrier, Richard (2014) Element 29 On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 159)

Again, why should I believe that because Carrier says it? He is not generally accepted as such an authority as to command belief by his very name. Far from it.

(But for a most remarkable and favourable review of this work by Carrier, see http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles/review-richard-carrier2014.html) Extract.

Though in effect unnecessary due to the nature of the sources, the damning prior probability, and the carefully-constructed theory of minimal mythicism (which all the evidence seems to support), Carrier nevertheless mathematically argues that the probability of Jesus’ historical existence is 33% at best, and far less than 1% at worst. He concludes that Jesus did not exist. Though I have no great desire to deny some form of historical Jesus, I am inclined to agree, and applaud his careful and methodological approach, particularly given the underwhelming recent efforts of Casey and Ehrman (whose key arguments revolved around non-existing sources and illogically-derived and questionable early source dates). The most significant aspect of Carrier’s book – as much of his source-criticism is already well-known – is that he seems to be the first to examine the issue of Jesus’ historicity, incorporating a direct (and logically exhaustive) comparison of the plausible hypotheses.

 

[dejudge]

(But for a most remarkable and favourable review of this work by Carrier, see http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles/review-richard-carrier2014.html) Extract.

Though in effect unnecessary due to the nature of the sources, the damning prior probability, and the carefully-constructed theory of minimal mythicism (which all the evidence seems to support), Carrier nevertheless mathematically argues that the probability of Jesus’ historical existence is 33% at best, and far less than 1% at worst. He concludes that Jesus did not exist. Though I have no great desire to deny some form of historical Jesus, I am inclined to agree, and applaud his careful and methodological approach, particularly given the underwhelming recent efforts of Casey and Ehrman (whose key arguments revolved around non-existing sources and illogically-derived and questionable early source dates). The most significant aspect of Carrier’s book – as much of his source-criticism is already well-known – is that he seems to be the first to examine the issue of Jesus’ historicity, incorporating a direct (and logically exhaustive) comparison of the plausible hypotheses.

I am extremely delighted that you have shown that Scholars have ALREADY recognized that the arguments for an HJ by Casey and Ehrman REVOLVED around NON-EXISTING sources, logical fallacies and questionable early dating.

In effect, Ehrman and Casey used Fiction [Non-Existing evidence] to argue for their HJ.

Essentially, the HJ of Casey and Ehrman is a product of Fiction [non-existing evidence]

It is confirmed.

NO Scholar can or has been able to present any credible contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

HJ is Fiction and Pauline Corpus is a confirmed pack of lies dated to the 2nd century or later.

 

[maximara]

Again, why should I believe that because Carrier says it?

Not just Carrier as I demonstrated in the parts you ignored.

IC Jarvie, Peter Worsley, Derrett, James Crossley, and others.

As I stated before and will state until you get the point Carrier is basing his comparison on the work of social anthropologist Peter Worsley and those of three other anthropologists to build his case.

It was Peter Worsley NOT Carrier who stated "Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum." Get your references right.