This is a point which must be ignored to maintain a "Mythical Jesus" position like the one IanS does.
If you push this point, you will be ignored.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
This is a point which must be ignored to maintain a "Mythical Jesus" position like the one IanS does.
If you push this point, you will be ignored.
Which Paul wrote when?
You cannot answer the key question.
You merely believe your own history.
The Pauline Jesus was a Spirit and was the Last Myth character--the Last Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV
Hmmph. The whole Paul never wrote that he lacked natural sources of information about Jesus' mortal life in the first place idea kind of falls apart when you try to explain why what little he tells of Jesus is so blasted vague....just like what you see for John Frum.
Also we need to remember "natural" to those people was not natural as we understand it. Remember that Euhemerism was the default go to for the educated. To them Zeus had actually been a mortal king who was buried on Crete and Heracles was a flesh and blood Egyptian man who was a king in Argos; all the supernatural aspects given to them had been add ons but they and every god you can think of had a moral person behind them
The statement "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." should always be going through your mind when talking about this period.
To the masses "magic" and what we call supernatural were just as real as atoms and radio waves are to us ie they were part of the "natural" world.
I see why one would like to ignore that little point.
Last edited:
Because he was preaching a different version to James and Co.
Their Jesus was teaching adherence to Jewish Law (circumcision etc) and that Righteousness was achieved through works plus faith, not faith alone.
Whereas Paul's Jesus was telling people to honour the Roman Authorities as being appointed by God, to pay their taxes, etc, and that "The Righteous shall live by his faith..." meant belief in Jesus Christ, no works required...
Paul's Jesus was opposed to James' Jesus. James and Co were "Zealous for the Law", Paul called the Law of Moses "a curse" and described the Jews following those laws as "cursed".
That is why Paul speaks mostly about a spiritual "Christ Jesus" who was a "Spiritual Messiah", as opposed to the Zealot's "Lay and Priestly" Messiahs who were to bring down the "Heavenly Hosts to purify the Earth" with a rain of Judgement...
This is part of the Hypothesis in my "Paul The Herodian" thread.
Paul does mention directly one teaching of Jesus' about Divorce. He immediately gives his own rule, which is different to Jesus'.
Why does he have to do that, if he invented Jesus?
Last edited:
Paul the Herodian is fringe of fringe of fringe, is not the consensus of historians and without a shred of supporting evidence.
You have not presented an hypothesis but have speculated using your imagination and logical fallacies.
You must first have data to develop an hypothesis.
Name an accepted historical source of antiquity which mentions Saul/Paul a Pharisee who preached a crucified and resurrected Jesus and God's Own Son?
Name any accepted historical source of antiquity which mentions any aquaintances of Paul a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin?
What is the known provenance of the Pauline Corpus?
What is the date of the earliest extant copy of the Pauline Corpus?
Name the corroborative evidence for the Pauline Corpus in the NT Canon?
I know it is a fringe position. It isn't as fringe as yours though.
You are the only person in the world who thinks what you do.
Everybody with an education in this subject disagrees with your "Hoax" scenario. Everybody, including Carrier and Doherty.
So I don't see why you are getting so excited. I have provided all of the evidence and references and reasoning for my Hypothesis, you have still provided nothing.
Why not start a thread like I did, and walk us through the details of your scenario? I want names, dates, documents, logic and references. Can you do that?
Last edited:
It is not only fringe but without a shred of evidence. I am amazed that the Brianache who riducules posters for not accepting his unknown Scholarly consensus would admit openly that his position on Paul is fringe.
How sad.
That is one of the biggest mistake that you could have made--to admit your position is fringe.
Brainache said:
Your statement is illogical. You just agreed with me that your position is FRINGE.
Brianache said:
Your statement cannot be shown to be true. Please name EVERYBODY with an education in this subject.
Brianache said:
Your "hypothesis"? Paul the Herodian is Your Hypothesis? What is Robert Eisenman's Hypothesis on Paul?
Brianache said:
You have nothing but assumptions and speculation.
Name the source of antiquity you used that states Saul/Paul did exist in the time of Gaius to Nero, was a Herodian and not a Pharisee of the Tribe of Benjamin.
You are incapable of presenting any data from antiquity for fringe Paul.
If you read and understood that thread, then you have seen the evidence. I don't have to present it here as well.
You have still not provided any evidence at all for your idiotic assertions about hoaxsters forgeries and fakes.
The educated people are the ones who disagree with you. Unfortunately for you, your style even seems to be alienating the uneducated ones who might otherwise have been on your side.
Oh well.
He doesn't per PAUL ON DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, AND 1 COR. 7
Also Paul himself wrote righteousness was achieved through works as well; see Romans 2:6, 13; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Corinthians 11:15; and Philippians 2:12.
If you say the editors mucked around with Paul when the whole James brother of Jesus argument falls on its face because the same arguments applied to it.
Evidence that is a joke:
1) Paul rambling on about the Jesus in his own head
2) Gospels that no Church man even references until the 130s suggesting they didn't exist in referable (ie written) form until that time.
3) Third party references that either have been tampered with to the point we don't what if anything they said about Jesus (Josephus, Tacitus); stuff that appears to be repeating Urban myth (Tacitus and Suetonius); or desperate grabs to find something anything to show Jesus existed (Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian, Talmud, and the ever popular and ever stupid Julius Africanus and Thallus combo)
The Bermuda Triangle myth is based on better material (in that we at least have an idea where and when it came from and can cross check it)!
Last edited:
Evidence that is a joke:
1) Paul rambling on about the Jesus in his own head
2) Gospels that no Church man even references until the 130s suggesting they didn't exist in referable (ie written) form until that time.
3) Third party references that either have been tampered with to the point we don't what if anything they said about Jesus (Josephus, Tacitus); stuff that appears to be repeating Urban myth (Tacitus and Suetonius); or desperate grabs to find something anything to show Jesus existed (Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian, Talmud, and the ever popular and ever stupid Julius Africanus and Thallus combo)
The Bermuda Triangle myth is based on better material (in that we at least have an idea where and when it came from and can cross check it)!
So, you haven't read the thread then.
OK.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
max
Until you specify whom we are talking about, it is impossible to judge whether Paul's writing about Jesus is or is not "just like John Frum" as portrayed by this mystery person.
Which has what to do with whether or not Paul wrote that he lacked natural sources of information about Jesus' mortal life?
I have asked you before, and you have as yet not responded, who served in the role of Paul for John Frum? May we have a link to this person's missionary writings, so that we may read them?
Until you specify whom we are talking about, it is impossible to judge whether Paul's writing about Jesus is or is not "just like John Frum" as portrayed by this mystery person.
I have read the thread and it is the same old same old Paul, Gospels, questionable third part sources that have been trotted out like Don Quixote's magnificent steed that we have been getting for over 100 years. You could turning it into a bad rap album and take it on the road.
I have read the thread and it is the same old same old Paul, Gospels, questionable third part sources that have been trotted out like Don Quixote's magnificent steed that we have been getting for over 100 years. You could turning it into a bad rap album and take it on the road.
I doubt people have been trotting out the Dead Sea Scrolls for 100 years.
You are the one with the out of date Scholars, not me. That thread started as a summary of a chapter from a book published in 2012, not 1913.
Once again you show that you haven't read that thread.
Did you stop at page one?
That same question can be asked of Manehivi (1940-41), Neloaig (1943), and Iokaeye (1947) Anthropologists generally put the origin of the John Frum cult in the 1930s so where are missionary writings regarding John Frum from that time, O Wise One?
Never mind have one letter written in 1947 putting John Frum even earlier (1910s) compounding the issue.
As I pointed out if we take the claims of NT manuscript being among the DSS-Qumran finds seriously (stop ROTFLOL, you'll hurt yourself
) then the limitations of paleographic dating give you a 50 year range as a minimum allowing many of the finds to predate Jesus never mind Paul's conversion.As I have said the dating of the Gospels before 130 CE requires unknown methodology in terms of quality or reason. In fact we are still waiting on that scholar history paper that shows these guys simply aren't doing a Bermuda Triangle and just repeating what the previous scholar claimed or worse pulling dates out of the ether based on preconceptions (Miner shows how well that works).
Last edited:
That same question can be asked of Manehivi (1940-41), Neloaig (1943), and Iokaeye (1947) Anthropologists generally put the origin of the John Frum cult in the 1930s so where are missionary writings regarding John Frum from that time, O Wise One?
Never mind have one letter written in 1947 putting John Frum even earlier (1910s) compounding the issue.
As I pointed out if we take the claims of NT manuscript being among the DSS-Qumran finds seriously (stop ROTFLOL, you'll hurt yourself
As I have said the dating of the Gospels before 130 CE requires unknown methodology in terms of quality or reason. In fact we are still waiting on that scholar history paper that shows these guys simply aren't doing a Bermuda Triangle and just repeating what the previous scholar claimed.
Again: Who is claiming NT manuscripts in the DSS? Not me.
ETA: How much more difficult is it to click this link and actually read the thread, than to click on "reply" to this post?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096
Take your time, read all the way to the end. You might learn something. You would at the very least see what it is you are arguing against, rather than the bizarre things you've been saying so far.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
I know almost nothing about the hinduist mythology. But hunting was an aristocratic activity in the warrior’s societies, so I don't consider the death of Krishna dishonourable at all.
Be eaten by monsters or beasts or commit suicide (this is direct cause of Heracle's death) weren't dishonourable deaths in Mediterranean ancient world. You can find they were silly, ingenuous or another qualifying that your modern rationalism or ethnocentrism will suggest to you. But they were compatible with the higher rank that mythical mentalities assigned to their heroes. The repugnant death of the Christ was not.
David Mo
Philosopher
I'm glad you're so sure. I find admirable your unwavering firmness. But I think it is a bit too rocky. A little effort to understand the opposite point of view would do it more... I don't find the appropriate qualifying... I would say "intelligent" but I wouldn't like to be offensive. The damned limits of my poor English!
See Craig B's comment #4679. He answers you better I can do on this point.
This is the clue for my interpretation. Paul's theology is working in the middle of a variety of Christian currents which manifested themselves in oral mode. He picks up those that interested him or were so common that it was impossible do not take account of them. The crucifixion of a divine Master is so distant from the common religious world both of Judaism as Paganism that can't be "interesting" to invent to Paul or anybody in this time. So it is more natural to think that the early Chistianism is fighting bitterly with some biblical passages that obviously don't have the significance that Christians assign them, because they are trying to mask or to give sense to a non invented fact: the repugnant death of his leader.
Yes, you can imagine a collective insanity that makes that some strange individuals imagine from nothing a repugnant god. But this is so distant from the logic of the myths we know in the area and time we are speaking, that you must to present some evidence of this strange fact. Extraordinary facts need extraordinary proofs, you know. And you haven’t any evidence in that sense.
Meanwhile you find this unlikely evidence, I continue accepting the usual norms to the formation of myths. And they say it is very likely that efforts to find implausible antecedents of the Jesus' death in the Old Testament are a clear indication that this was a real event.
David Mo
Philosopher
You are right, but insanity has his logic too. If you are trying to convert the Romans is absurd to invent that they are killers of my god. You blame directly the Jews and your problem is over. Why the Gospels account a crucifixion that everybody knew that was a Roman punishment?
Paul could be a lunatic fringe, but not so much. So that's why we need accept that Paul was fighting with an earlier tradition: the Crucifixion.
Dismissed Paul we pass the buck to the first hours Christians. What interest could they have to invent a repugnant death of his Master? No one. The most natural interpretation is that they were fighting against a disconcerting fact: their beloved Master and, perhaps, expected Messiah had died in the cross without accomplish the announced arrival of the Kingdom. What is to be done?
Yes, we can dismiss the most natural interpretation in favour of an alleged and unexplained collective insanity. We can. But this is at odds with the most reasonable interpretation.
shiftthird3
But one of the Christ myths points to Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus c100 BCE as the origin for Jesus and he (not the Romans) crucified 800 rebels. Visions and dreams make connections that in many times don't make sense in retrospect and given Paul is going on about a vision as "divine truth" we are getting that in spades.
Besides Paul effectively says the Romans (or at least the leaders of the Empire) crucified Christ in 1 Corinthians 2:8.
Remember that Paul wrote in a time where the Empire was having Crazy Ruler syndrome. Followed by can we find a ruler who lasts at least a year? Well they say third time...argh not again
.
I imagine that the average Roman was not very confident regarding things in their rulership so why pass the deed to Jews when you have corrupt, insane Roman rulers to blame?
But one of the Christ myths points to Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus c100 BCE as the origin for Jesus and he (not the Romans) crucified 800 rebels. Visions and dreams make connections that in many times don't make sense in retrospect and given Paul is going on about a vision as "divine truth" we are getting that in spades.
Besides Paul effectively says the Romans (or at least the leaders of the Empire) crucified Christ in 1 Corinthians 2:8.
Remember that Paul wrote in a time where the Empire was having Crazy Ruler syndrome. Followed by can we find a ruler who lasts at least a year? Well they say third time...argh not again
. I imagine that the average Roman was not very confident regarding things in their rulership so why pass the deed to Jews when you have corrupt, insane Roman rulers to blame?
Last edited:
- Status