Your methodology is extremely strange. Convoluted explanations of a fiction birth narrative where Jesus was born of a Ghost makes it likely Jesus was a figure of history??
Okay, let's go through it one more time. If you're making up a character out of whole cloth, and he's supposed to come from Bethlehem, you just have him born in and come from Bethlehem. You don't have to explain why he came from Galilee but really came from Bethlehem, because, since you are making him up, he
didn't come from Galilee. Got it?
Why didn't Paul call it hallucinations? The Pauline Corpus is a product of hallucinations ---NOT history.
The question I've hilited has to be one of the more bizarre ones I've come across. People hallucinating usually don't see their hallucinations as such.
We know that Paul was not in the real world when he wrote about Jesus--He was in cloud cuckoo land.
That is precisely what I've been arguing. So, are you now saying that you accept that Paul was areal person and that he wrote Galatians, in which he claims his knowledge of Jesus comes from a direct revelation (what we today would call a hallucination)?
. . .(snip) . . .
That is exactly what a forger would do. A forger would want late writings to be accepted as early writings by inserting information to make them appear to be early.
Why do you think all the Gospels appear to end at the time of Pilate?
Why do you think the authors of the Gospels make it appear that they wrote while the Temple was still standing ?
I hope you aware that the Gospels are forgeries written well after c 70 CE.
Of course, the gospels were written as if to appear to have been written before the destruction of the Temple for the purpose of having Jesus "foretell" its destruction. Paul's mention of the congregation in Jerusalem doesn't fall into that category.
Concerning the hilited area: Once again, I have repeatedly stated that the gospels had to have been written after CE 70, and did so well before I heard from you. You either have ignored what I've written or are being deliberately insulting.
If the forgeries were so crude how is it that non-apologetic writers did not expose them. It took hundreds of years before it was discovered that the Pauline Corpus is a product of multiple authors--perhaps as much as 7 authors.
Up until the Enlightenment, it was often a death sentence to suggest that the Bible, OT or NT, was anything but the word of God. For example, Spinoza had to deal with attempts on is life for suggesting that the Torah wasn't written by Moses.
If you can't see how crude those forgeries are are, you're not looking.
You must believe the Bible is a source of history for your Jesus or else you will be devastated. Ironically, Christians believe the Bible is a source of history for the same reason.
Essentialy, your Jesus is a Jesus of Faith.
Strangely enough, I don't believe in the Bible and yet, I am not devastated.
Again, the Jesus I posit as a very minor messianic pretender to whom myths accrued is not the Jesus of the gospels. He is, in fact, very little different from whatever military leader led a resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invaders and served as the source of the Arthurian legends. In the case of Arthur, the person, who may have been borne that name as either a title or sobriquet, may have been Ambrosius Aurelianus, or he may have been a composite of different characters. My saying that there was a Jesus - or a composite of different people - to whom accrued a body of myth and messianic expectation is no more than that, and is hardly a Jesus of faith.
