abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Interestingly, his travelling companions are claimed to have seen nothing at all beyond Saul falling down on the road.
This is surely an indication it was all in Saul's head.
Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Ricardo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus jesus
- Status
This is surely an indication it was all in Saul's head.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,528
Saul of Tsarsus AKA St, Paul.
Saul had a real head?
I don't know how a fiction character could have made up a story of Jesus.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,528
I understand your point. It has always been accepted by Christians that Paul was Saul of Tarsus. It's more than reasonable to argue this is not the case. So let me revise my earlier post. I believe the story of Jesus was created by Paul and enhanced and exaggerated by later authors.
What is consistent and probably more important than the characters is the actions they did.
And upon his contact with Chucho his heart changed, he abandoned all instantly and went to preach.
Or if he was the cured, recipient of a miracle, whatever. It's that he was so inspired by Chucho he forgot his past and became one to inspire others. A recruiter of sorts to his newfound values.
Forget the conflicting details and brush over blatant foolishness as if it never mattered. The message is be/do as Chucho suggested.
Its like he became a recurring hero in children's literature of the great teacher, the one showing the right way to live and act, thinking for yourself not required.
As many churches use bible stories, heavy on Chucho, to show the kids the " truth " they want the kids to know. Two of those books are in my house as my son fakes his way through first communion garbage. At ten he has decided he cannot believe what they teach.
And upon his contact with Chucho his heart changed, he abandoned all instantly and went to preach.
Or if he was the cured, recipient of a miracle, whatever. It's that he was so inspired by Chucho he forgot his past and became one to inspire others. A recruiter of sorts to his newfound values.
Forget the conflicting details and brush over blatant foolishness as if it never mattered. The message is be/do as Chucho suggested.
Its like he became a recurring hero in children's literature of the great teacher, the one showing the right way to live and act, thinking for yourself not required.
As many churches use bible stories, heavy on Chucho, to show the kids the " truth " they want the kids to know. Two of those books are in my house as my son fakes his way through first communion garbage. At ten he has decided he cannot believe what they teach.
Which Paul? The Epistles under the name of Paul were composed after stories of Jesus were already known in the Roman Empire.
In the Epistles the author claimed he persecuted those who were preaching the faith before him.
1 Corinthians 15:9
Galatians 1:23
The Pauline character was manufactured and the Epistles were late invention.
What is most amusing and ridiculous is that the character called Paul claimed to be a witness of events which never ever and could not have happened.
The fiction story that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day and seen by his disciples predated the Epistles and the writer called Paul claimed he was a witness that God raised Jesus from the dead.
What fiction!!!
Jesus, his disciples and Saul/Paul are all fiction characters without historical corroboration.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,528
I was under the impression that the first known writings that mentioned Jesus were some of the epistles.
Thor 2
Philosopher
The interesting thing noticeable about visions, and other miracles, is credibility is enhanced by age.
In recent times there are many claiming to see visions. There were around 10,000 Catholics who came to the Knock Shrine in North-West Ireland in 2009, to experience a vision of the Virgin Mary on the advice of a spiritual leader, who told them to look at the Sun. Lots of these folk went to an ophthalmologist afterwards for treatment of damaged macula. The burning of this part of the eye can cause bizarre visions.
This event happened just over 10 years ago, so we don't hear versions of miraculous sightings by some of the faithful, being quoted as evidence of heavenly beings. I wonder if Saul looked at the Sun?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
For mine, First Council of Nicaea, and its subsequent Nicaean Creed, was a cornerstone of cementing the Church's power, something that was achieved by using threats of heresy declarations to eliminate opposing scripture. As such, it was the key foundation of Roman Church's persecution of non-Catholics; the Cathars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecuton of Protestants in France etc. I simply do not accept this is not the case.
Constantine may have given laws against heretics before the Nicaean Creed, but that in no way minimises the threat contained in its final sentence. At the risk of being accused of invoking Godwin, the Nazis declared their anti-Jewish laws, Nürnberger Gesetze in 1935; that's seven years before the Wannsee Conference. That earlier giving of the laws does not make the Wannsee Conference any less key in the implementation of the Final Solution!
Also, remember it was Constantine who summoned the Council of Nicaea in the first place, so that places his law giving in the context of the Council, making the threat at the end, a reinforcement of his given laws.
On top of that, Constantine supposedly "converted" to Christianity in or about 312 ( a decade before the Council at Nicaea). After having persecuted Christians for most of his reign, I doubt that his word would carry much weight or be trusted among most of the general Christian populace. He was a smart guy, and didn't truly covert until just before his death in 337 when he was baptised. Its pretty certain he was keeping his options open, as baptism absolved the recipient of all sins... how veeeery conveeeenient.
Interestingly, he was actually baptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop whose beliefs had been declared heretical at the Council of Nicea. Go figure!
ETA: Before someone accuses me of likening the First Council at Nicaea with the Wannsee Conference, that was not my intent, nor was it even inferred. It was given as a well known examaple of a conference ratifying and reinforcing some laws that preceded it.
Last edited:
Ironically, as I've said before, it's also pretty much what mainstream bible scholarship says, but for some reason they basically still call one of the guys in the mix (which may be real or not) the Historical Jesus. It's a really bizarro world, where at least parts of the opposing teams are more or less making the same claim, but they still call each other wrong
As I was saying before, even Ehrman will cheerfully tell you, and for that matter say it in lectures all over the place, that mainstream scholarship for more than a century at this point is that:
A) no more than 30% of the sayings and ideas attributed to Jesus could have reasonably been said by the same person, and
B) there is more than one set of those 30% -- i.e., more than one person -- that can be reconstructed, and scholars disagree as to which is the real Slim Shady
That's not fringe and not even new. It's bog standard bible scholarship at this point.
So basically at this point the only difference between mainstream scholarship and your Christ Myth version is basically just this:
MJ: well, then it's a composite that never existed in that form
HJ: yeah, but one of those parts of the composite -- more specifically the one _I_ cherrypicked -- is the Historical Jesus
Derp
It's like a joke I heard - Pick a Jesus, pick any Jesus.
Let's face it, the Historical Jesus has become a really bad joke and everyone who isn't afraid for their job and has a working brain in their head will point that out. Yes, I know the effective No True Scotsman nature of that comment but that is the same BS the Historical Jesus has been throwing the mythists' way so what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
When one of the main figures in the field of Biblical studies effectively says that the field is such a train wreck in terms of proper use of the historical method that it needs to be nuked from orbit and restarted you know that that field has major problems.
It is ironic that Albert Schweitzer, who believed there was a man behind the stories, commented that "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb."
He knew at a fundamental level the same thing Richard Price stated:
"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs."
Heck, there are some people who claim Jesus was actually teaching a form of Buddhism which shows just how much a Tabla Rosa the "historical Jesus" is.
Last edited:
I don't how you could be under such an impression when you have no historical corroboration at all of any actual person named Paul of Tarsus who was a contemporary of anyone living in the 1st century. There are also no manuscripts of any Epistles dated by paleography to the 1st century and no mention of a verse from an Epistle in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
In addition, the assumed writer called Paul always placed himself after his Jesus was raised from the dead and after those who preached about Jesus.
The so-called Pauline writer even claimed he was the last to see the resurrected Jesus.
Stories of the resurrected Jesus, God's own son born of a woman predated all the NT Epistles [Pauline or not].
Last edited:
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,528
I understand that chronologically as the events in the stories unfold the Epistles come later. However, it is my understanding that the earliest known writings about Jesus were some of the books/letters/epistles attributed to St. Paul.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I think dejudge misunderstood you there. When you said "first known writings" he may have thought you were inferring they were contemporaneous.
Last edited:
ChristianProgressive
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,860
J Warner Wallace, a homicide detective specializing in cold-case investigation, makes a powerful case for not only the historical existence of Christ but His divinity in his books "Forensic Faith" and "Cold-Case Christianity" in which he applies the scientific methods of his profession to the available evidence.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
A specialist who pontificates outside of their speciality is no more informed than the average laymen.
He's also not the crime investigator to investigate HJ
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8464976-jesus
Last edited:
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,528
That happens. But I'm not so sure as he was questioning my idea that Paul or whomever wrote the Epistles made up Jesus and other writers added to the story or filled in the blanks.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,528
Sure he does.
What evidence? There is no body. No eyewitnesses to interview. No DNA. Not even a single contemporary writer who claims to be a witness of the crucifixion or any of the events written in stories 3 to 6 decades later.
What possible scientific method does he use ?
No offense CP, but if you believe his nonsense, I've got some great real estate available for sale.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No, really, I've seen it.
Its in the middle of Paris and its got a 1063 ft tall wrought-iron tower on it.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,528
I sold that already. A few times.
This is an island in the NY harbor. Great view of lower Manhattan. It does have a similar sculpture to one that can be found in the Eiffel Tower's shadow.
Last edited:
- Status