The Historical Jesus II

[IanS]

So when Paul and the Gospels tell us that Jesus had a human father (as they do) that is a lie ("established" by whom?) and when they say it was a prophesied ghost, that was fiction. Mmm. Let's see ...
What if he was Son of God in the Davidic sense, as plainly stated by Paul (Carrier's absurdities aside), but this didn't prevent him from having a human father, like Jesse for David and David for Solomon.

And who "prophesied" that Jesus was to be fathered by a ghost?

Can you quote where Paul's letters say that Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus? Because off hand I don't recall reading that in Paul? Where is that?

As far as anything in the gospels are concerned - those are so packed with constant fiction that only a complete fool could possibly regard them as a reliable source for anything it's late anonymous authors claimed about a messiah that none of them had ever known anyway.

If you think the gospels are reliable when they say that Joseph was the father of Jesus (if that is what you claim they say) then what is the evidence to show that any such claim in the gospel was true? Or is that just an un-evidenced claim in some gospels? And if it is merely an un-evidenced claim, why would you believe it? ... you believe it because you think the gospel writers were a reliable source of fact?

If you are having to rely on the manifestly absurd supernatural gospels, then it just shows how low your argument and your respect for evidence has actually sunk (down to zero).

 

[Craig B]

Again you display intellectual dishonesty <snip many things> It is complete intellectually dishonest for you to state the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus support an historical Jesus [a man with a human father] when it is a known heresy for at least 1800 years.

it follows from this, that it is intellectually honest to reject the words of Paul and the gospels which state that Jesus had a human father because such belief is a known heresy!

Thus again you resolutely seek out and denounce heresy, ever striving to propagate the True Doctrine of Holy Mother Church, unbesmirched by the taint of Heresy or Blasphemy.

In this, you resemble the pious HJ scholars who preach the existence of Jesus so that they will be admitted to Eternal Life with their Saviour. You will too, I'm sure, as Obedience is rewarded in that way by the Blessed Virgin.

 

[dejudge]

it follows from this, that it is intellectually honest to reject the words of Paul and the gospels which state that Jesus had a human father because such belief is a known heresy!

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

The Pauline Corpus does not even mention Joseph and Nazareth.

The Pauline Corpus states that Jesus is the LORD GOD, God's OWN Son from heaven and was made a Spirit.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:47--- The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

2. Galatians 4:4--- But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman

3. Romans 8:3 ---For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

4. Philippians 2 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

5. Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

Thus again you resolutely seek out and denounce heresy, ever striving to propagate the True Doctrine of Holy Mother Church, unbesmirched by the taint of Heresy or Blasphemy.

You are the one who denounces the Doctrine of the Holy Mother Church but SIMULTANEOUSLY still use the very NT produced by the same Church as a credible historical source.

The Canon of the Holy Mother Church states Jesus was God of God and born of a Ghost but you argue in a most intellectually dishonest manner that the Canon of the Holy Mother Church actually claims Jesus was a man with a human father.

In this, you resemble the pious HJ scholars who preach the existence of Jesus so that they will be admitted to Eternal Life with their Saviour. You will too, I'm sure, as Obedience is rewarded in that way by the Blessed Virgin.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

You believe that Jesus in the Canon of the Holy Mother Church was really real although you have never seen him and have no historical data.

You believe the writings of the Holy Mother Church like gMark, gMatthew, gJohn and the Pauline Corpus contain the REAL history of your HJ.

You are BLESSED and may be SAVED if you believe Jesus did exist, was baptized and was crucified under Pilate.

Read the words of Jesus according to writers of the Holy Mother Church.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm
Church History 1.13.9.

Blessed are you who hast believed in me without having seen me.

For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and be saved.

People who believe Jesus existed using the writings of the Holy Mother Church may QUALIFY for a place in heaven.

 

[maximara]

Worthy of what attribute? You mean the word "assurance"?

Sure, but no sceptics here are claiming anything so certain as "assurance" about any of this.

For my part what I have stressed from page one (in fact from years before that in several other directly related HJ threads, both here and on two other sites, mostly with the same participants at various stages), is that it comes down to a question of reliable evidence.

The claim is that Jesus existed. And the burden of "proof", i.e. reasonable reliable evidence, rests entirely with those who have for 2000 years insisted that the evidence shows Jesus was real.

But the truth is, as this thread has demonstrated beyond any doubt, that there actually is no evidence at all of a human Jesus ever known to anyone. And in fact to the contrary, there is an absolute mass of undeniable evidence showing how and why all the primary writing about Jesus in the bible, is either certain fiction (that accounts for nearly all of it!), or else nothing more than the unsubstantiated un-evidenced religious superstitions of people in an age of almost unimaginable ignorance.

It's not that it would be impossible for Jesus to have existed. That's clearly possible, if only because many religious street preachers did apparently exist at that time. But the issue is whether there is actually any reliable evidence to show he existed. And the answer to that is apparently, No! ... no, there actually is no evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone.

Well to be fair to those people the very man who invented the concept of history, Herodotus, had argued that myths were distorted accounts of real historical events. All Euhemerus did was kick the idea up a notch to where all myths had some basis in historical fact.

As far as "almost unimaginable ignorance" goes our own modern time are little better. How many people believe that MLMs will make them rich, believe in the basic concept of homeopathic elixir that the more deluded something is the stronger it is, that the world is controled by a secret Cabal that has is hand in every government, or any other off the well tinfoil hat idea someone comes up with?

The ancient people had a "structure" on how the world supposedly worked and everything was viewed through that structure.

Was that structure too keep on going for the Magical World Theory and knocking off for lunch? Definitely but it was doing that for people we have reasonable evidence that existed.

At the core of the HJ idea is the Great Man theory; the idea that history is shaped by great and important people. For example, the idea that without Christopher Columbus the Americas wouldn't have been discovered by the major European powers is a Great man theory.

As the heart of it the MJ idea is a Great Moment theory; that social political factors shaped events so an event was effectively inevitable. "The discovery of American around 1500 was inevitable" is a Great Moment theory.

The problem with the Great Moment theory is that it didn't have an actual mechanic of how it could work until system theory came along in the 1970s. SO for a long time Christ Myth theory was just this blob of unrelated idea jumbled together so a to appear that it formed a cohesive whole (when in reality many times it didn't)

The very idea of looking at history in general via system theory is only 40 some years old...it very very young compared to the Euhemerism+Great Man approach used for Jesus for over 1400 years (4th century to 18th).

 

[Craig B]

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

The Pauline Corpus does not even mention Joseph and Nazareth.

Who said it did? I never said it mentioned any name or place of residence of the father. It mentions Jesus' ancestral lineage, and specifies it as literal and physical.

 

[IanS]

Who said it did? I never said it mentioned any name or place of residence of the father. It mentions Jesus' ancestral lineage, and specifies it as literal and physical.

What ancestral lineage? You mean King David? If you had watched that video of Carrier, where he answers all your questions and more, in a debate with two US Christians (the video link is only a few pages back), he makes the point to his opponents that current day bible scholars do in fact now almost all agree that David was probably never a real person. Those are the same bible scholars that you and Brainache have been relying upon when you say that expert historians believe that Jesus was real ... well those same people believe that David, Abraham, Moses and others were not real, and they have decided that on actual evidential grounds (in contrast to their Jesus belief which is held in the absence of actual evidence).

The truth is that Paul's letters do NOT say that "Jesus had human parents". That is not the sort of wording used in those letters. And iirc, the actual phrases used in Paul's letters are far more vague on what the author meant as the nature of Jesus' "parentage" ... in fact iirc, he just says that his father was Yahweh, and that he was, in some sense, "born of a woman" in his temporary assumed fleshy existence on earth as opposed to his actual permanent existence as the heavenly Son of Yahweh.

If you recall the video I linked several times where bible scholar John Huddleston was interviewed by Richard Dawkins, which was again a very revealing interview showing clearly how weak the HJ position is, Huddleston explains there that in biblical times everybody that was thought to be important was said to be "born of a woman" but with a god as the father, and that certainly would include all the fictional spiritual gods and their agents when they interacted with anyone on earth.

So on that basis, it's almost certain that Paul's description was never anything more than a figurative appellation to say "born of a woman", where Paul was simply following the universal belief that any such messiah would always be "born of a woman" and with "God as the father".

Put that another way - the reason Paul's letters do not mention anything so specific as named human parents, such as Joseph and Mary, is that Paul was never claiming any such thing as a known normal human birth of the messiah. He was instead repeating the OT prophetic tradition that everyone accepted at that time, where any such important figure was always said to be "born of a woman" with Yahweh as the father.

 

[dejudge]

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

The Pauline Corpus does not even mention Joseph and Nazareth.

Who said it did? I never said it mentioned any name or place of residence of the father. It mentions Jesus' ancestral lineage, and specifies it as literal and physical.

Your farce has been exposed so you cannot now claim Joseph was the father of the Pauline Jesus.

You are presently using the Canon of the Holy Mother Church to argue the Heresy that Joseph was the father of Jesus which the very Church writers denounced as a LIE.

In the NT Joseph of the seed of David ADOPTED the Son of the Holy Ghost AFTER he married Mary who was found with child by the same Ghost.


The Pauline Corpus directly states the immediate LINEAGE of Jesus was GOD and that Jesus was the Literal and physical LORD God from heaven who Created heaven and earth.

Jesus is the LORD GOD in the Pauline Corpus and the ENTIRE NT.


Galatians 4:4-- But when the fulness of the time was come,God sent forth his Son, made of a woman

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Philippians 2.10-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Craig B]

Your farce has been exposed so you cannot now claim Joseph was the father of the Pauline Jesus.

You are presently using the Canon of the Holy Mother Church to argue the Heresy that Joseph was the father of Jesus which the very Church writers denounced as a LIE.

But the canon says otherwise in two places in gJohn. Why do you believe the Church? Is it to attain Salvation? You will join the Christian HJ people you have mentioned there, and contemplate the Beatific Vision together with them for all Eternity. What fun that'll be!

In the NT Joseph of the seed of David ADOPTED the Son of the Holy Ghost AFTER he married Mary who was found with child by the same Ghost.

Contradicted explicitly by Paul. Rom 1:3.

The Pauline Corpus directly states the immediate LINEAGE of Jesus was GOD and that Jesus was the Literal and physical LORD God from heaven who Created heaven and earth.

That's a mishmash of semi-gibberish.

Jesus is the LORD GOD in the Pauline Corpus and the ENTIRE NT.

We're not blind and notice your dishonest answering of points that were not made. Jesus is not the physical son of the Holy Ghost in the entire NT, and he is not The Lord God in many places, like where he utters Ps 22:1 on the cross. He is the physical son of the Holy Spirit and a Virgin only in gMatthew and gLuke, and none of your wordplay will excise that fact.

Galatians 4:4-- But when the fulness of the time was come,God sent forth his Son, made of a woman

A Virgin and the Holy Ghost? I don't see that there!

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Heaven made him Lord at the resurrection. See Rom 1.

Philippians 2.10-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I've discussed that passage before. Look up a concordance. I can't be bothered going through all that again.

 

[dejudge]

Your farce has been exposed so you cannot now claim Joseph was the father of the Pauline Jesus.

You are presently using the Canon of the Holy Mother Church to argue the Heresy that Joseph was the father of Jesus which the very Church writers denounced as a LIE.

But the canon says otherwise in two places in gJohn. Why do you believe the Church? Is it to attain Salvation? You will join the Christian HJ people you have mentioned there, and contemplate the Beatific Vision together with them for all Eternity. What fun that'll be!

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty. Why do you have to fabricate a fiction story about Joseph?

The Canon of the Holy Mother Church does not state that Joseph was the father of Jesus of Nazareth.

The birth or origin of Jesus is SPECIFICALLY stated in ALL the Canonised Gospels which mentioned Joseph.

1. gMatthew mentions Joseph but states Jesus was born AFTER his mother was found with child of a Ghost.

2, gLuke mentions called Joseph but states Jesus was a product of an "OVERSHADOWING" Ghost.

3. gJohn mentions Joseph but states Jesus was the Logos, God and God Creator.

In the NT Joseph of the seed of David ADOPTED the Son of the Holy Ghost AFTER he married Mary who was found with child by the same Ghost.

Contradicted explicitly by Paul. Rom 1:3. That's a mishmash of semi-gibberish.

Your claim the Pauline Corpus is contradictory does not help the HJ argument which is a mishmash of total gibberish .

The Pauline Corpus says Jesus was the Lord God from heaven, God Creator, and God's Own Son who was made a Spirit.

Any contradictory claims in the Pauline Corpus only demonstrate the Pauline writers were NOT historically credible.

We already know the NT including the Pauline Corpus is riddled with discrepancies, CONTRADICTIONS, and historical problems.

We're not blind and notice your dishonest answering of points that were not made. Jesus is not the physical son of the Holy Ghost in the entire NT, and he is not The Lord God in many places, like where he utters Ps 22:1 on the cross. He is the physical son of the Holy Spirit and a Virgin only in gMatthew and gLuke, and none of your wordplay will excise that fact.

You are either BLIND or intellectually dishonest.

Can you see this?

Matthew 1:20 ---But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

The Canon of the Holy Mother Church SPECIFICALLY states that Jesus is the Son of a Ghost.

It is just total intellectual dishonesty to claim Joseph was the father of Jesus when you have the Canon of the Holy Mother Church.

In addition, in the very gMatthew, the author put words in the character called Jesus of Nazareth that he was the LORD GOD when TEMPTED by Satan.

Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

The ENTIRE NT of the Holy Mother Church is in agreement with the doctrine of the Church thaat Jesus was God of God and born of a Ghost.

The writers for the Holy Mother Church actually use the NT Canon to argue AGAINST an histirical Jesus [ a man with a human father]

The historical Jesus[a man with a human father] was a KNOWN LIE for at least 1800 years based on writings attributed to Ignatius, Irenaeus, Aristides, Irenaeus, Tertuulian, Hippolytus, Origen, and others in antiquity.

 

[IanS]

But the canon says otherwise in two places in gJohn. Why do you believe the Church? Is it to attain Salvation? You will join the Christian HJ people you have mentioned there, and contemplate the Beatific Vision together with them for all Eternity. What fun that'll be! Contradicted explicitly by Paul. Rom 1:3. That's a mishmash of semi-gibberish. We're not blind and notice your dishonest answering of points that were not made. Jesus is not the physical son of the Holy Ghost in the entire NT, and he is not The Lord God in many places, like where he utters Ps 22:1 on the cross. He is the physical son of the Holy Spirit and a Virgin only in gMatthew and gLuke, and none of your wordplay will excise that fact. A Virgin and the Holy Ghost? I don't see that there! Heaven made him Lord at the resurrection. See Rom 1. I've discussed that passage before. Look up a concordance. I can't be bothered going through all that again.

Craig, for months now your replies have been reduced to making constant sarcastic remarks deliberately trying make untrue claims about what others here believe. It's not clever doing that. It's a complete waste of the forums space.

As for you telling us that some gospels sometimes say different things about whether Jesus was the child of God or the child of Joseph or Mary (whoever they were) - you must know that the gospels are so far from being a credible source of historical fact that only the most gullible imbecile would try to quote those as facts about an unknown un-evidenced supernatural messiah.

Paul's letters might just about be argued as more credible if "Paul" really did once write them himself (which seems rather unlikely). But as has been shown here repeatedly - Paul does not say that Jesus had human parents in any normal sense. In fact, as you well know, it's obvious that Paul never talks about Jesus as a human person ever known to anyone.

Those letters describe only the authors belief in a spiritual Jesus ... in the letters Paul and 500+ other people inc. named disciples etc. all "witnessed" Jesus, but they only ever witnessed him as a heavenly spirit of their visions. There is no human Jesus described by anyone in Paul's letters.

 

[dejudge]

As I stated before the HJ argument is a product of intellectual dishonesty.

The HJ arguments by Brainache and Craig B are perfect examples.

Brainache admits the Pauline writer was a Liar and conman but still accepts the Pauline Corpus as a credible historical WITHOUT corroboration from an independent accepted credible historical source of antiquity.

Craig B openly admits the Canon of the Holy Mother Church contains fiction but still use the very same admitted fiction Canon as a credible historical source WITHOUT corroboration from an accepted credible independent historical source of antiquity.

Craig B states that the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus and the claim that Jesus is God Creatorr are late additions in the NT but in a clumsy intellectual dishonest fashion fails to admit that JOSEPH is also a LATE addition in the NT.

The Holy Ghost conception, Jesus God Creator and the character called Joseph are ACTUALLY in the supposed LATER Gospels [gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn] and are NOT found in gMark and the Pauline Corpus.

In effect, the LATER Gospels which mention Joseph show that the character Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus of Nazareth.

Craig B also fails to admit that Jesus of Nazareth has the same NOMINA SACRA as the Lord GOD in the ENTIRE NT CANON.

Jesus was the LORD GOD of the Christian cult which Canonised the NT.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS the LORD GOD in the earliest existing manuscripts of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth God from the beginning.

Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had any real history from gMatthew to Revelation.

 

[Craig B]

You are presently using the Canon of the Holy Mother Church to argue the Heresy that Joseph was the father of Jesus which the very Church writers denounced as a LIE.

And you therefore accept the Infallible Word of the pious Doctors and Fathers of the Church defining Heresy, and when rationalists analyse the NT, you cite the Fathers and denounce the Enlightened exponents of Reason as Heretics who presume to reject the Word of the Doctors of the Church.

And you even accept as evidence of the Divine nature of Jesus according to the Church, that later scribes and copyists used Nomina Sacra. dejudge, that means they believed in the divinity of Jesus. That is of no interest to secular analysts of the NT. But you denounce Reason as Heresy and Lies, like an Inquisitor from bygone days of yore.

 

[maximara]

Craig, for months now your replies have been reduced to making constant sarcastic remarks deliberately trying make untrue claims about what others here believe. It's not clever doing that. It's a complete waste of the forums space.

As for you telling us that some gospels sometimes say different things about whether Jesus was the child of God or the child of Joseph or Mary (whoever they were) - you must know that the gospels are so far from being a credible source of historical fact that only the most gullible imbecile would try to quote those as facts about an unknown un-evidenced supernatural messiah.

Paul's letters might just about be argued as more credible if "Paul" really did once write them himself (which seems rather unlikely). But as has been shown here repeatedly - Paul does not say that Jesus had human parents in any normal sense. In fact, as you well know, it's obvious that Paul never talks about Jesus as a human person ever known to anyone.

Those letters describe only the authors belief in a spiritual Jesus ... in the letters Paul and 500+ other people inc. named disciples etc. all "witnessed" Jesus, but they only ever witnessed him as a heavenly spirit of their visions. There is no human Jesus described by anyone in Paul's letters.

"Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a 20 page letter passionately wanting to share his excitement about a new teacher. This letter has only one topic; your friend's new teacher. [But] by the end of his letter, after all 20 pages of it, you still don't know one thing about his teacher. Paul presents the central figure of his theology in just this way. ... It [seems] impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling even one story or parable or fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of--Jesus." - Wheaton and Fuller (2009) Hooks and Ladders: A Journey on a Bridge to Nowhere with American Evangelical Christians pg 31 per reference in OHJ pg 514

 

[Craig B]

"Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a 20 page letter passionately wanting to share his excitement about a new teacher. This letter has only one topic; your friend's new teacher. [But] by the end of his letter, after all 20 pages of it, you still don't know one thing about his teacher. Paul presents the central figure of his theology in just this way. ... It [seems] impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling even one story or parable or fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of--Jesus." - Wheaton and Fuller (2009) Hooks and Ladders: A Journey on a Bridge to Nowhere with American Evangelical Christians pg 31 per reference in OHJ pg 514

But the bolded bit is more or less true, so how can it be "impossible"?

 

[dejudge]

"Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a 20 page letter passionately wanting to share his excitement about a new teacher. This letter has only one topic; your friend's new teacher. [But] by the end of his letter, after all 20 pages of it, you still don't know one thing about his teacher. Paul presents the central figure of his theology in just this way. ... It [seems] impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling even one story or parable or fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of--Jesus." - Wheaton and Fuller (2009) Hooks and Ladders: A Journey on a Bridge to Nowhere with American Evangelical Christians pg 31 per reference in OHJ pg 514

We know a lot about the Jesus character from the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Corpus is the product of a Group--NOT a single person.

Now, there is a lot of fiction and mythology about Jesus in the Pauline Corpus.

In fact, the Pauline Corpus directly states that the writer under the name of PAUL was NOT the apostle of a man, that God's Son was revealed to him after a conference WITHOUT Flesh and blood and that Jesus was the LORD from heaven who was raised from the dead on the THIRD day.

We also learn that the Pauline Jesus was God Creator, God's Own Son and that the resurrected Lord God Jesus was seen of a Pauline writer after over 500 persons.

The Pauline Corpus also states directly that Jesus was the Son of God and a woman.

The Pauline Jesus, the Lord from heaven, was killed by the Jews, was buried and resurrected on the third day.

The Pauline Corpus confirms that the Jesus character is a product of mythology and fiction.

 

[IanS]

But the bolded bit is more or less true, so how can it be "impossible"?

What Max is pointing out as the seemingly "impossible", and what you just inadvertently agreed with, is that it seems impossible for Paul to have written in the way he did about Jesus unless Jesus was only known to him as a matter of faith.

If he ("Paul") had actually known that Jesus was real, then the content of his letters would have been very different indeed. That is what is being said.

 

[Craig B]

"Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a 20 page letter passionately wanting to share his excitement about a new teacher. This letter has only one topic; your friend's new teacher. [But] by the end of his letter, after all 20 pages of it, you still don't know one thing about his teacher. Paul presents the central figure of his theology in just this way. ... It [seems] impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling even one story or parable or fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of--Jesus." - Wheaton and Fuller (2009) Hooks and Ladders: A Journey on a Bridge to Nowhere with American Evangelical Christians pg 31 per reference in OHJ pg 514

This is beyond absurdity. You have a "new teacher". Does this teacher manifest him or herself by walking into the classroom in the normal way? Not a bit of it. You experience the teacher as a light in the sky, "revealing" various incomprehensible metaphysical things that look like foolishness. You have never met this teacher physically, and those who have met him are your ideological opponents whose teaching you firmly reject.

And people ask themselves why you don't chat about the teacher's conversation or physical traits (he is a light in the sky and a voice - he has NO physical traits) or personal quality. That's an impossible mystery is it? This is all quite ridiculous.

 

[dejudge]

"Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a 20 page letter passionately wanting to share his excitement about a new teacher. This letter has only one topic; your friend's new teacher. [But] by the end of his letter, after all 20 pages of it, you still don't know one thing about his teacher. Paul presents the central figure of his theology in just this way. ... It [seems] impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling even one story or parable or fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of--Jesus." - Wheaton and Fuller (2009) Hooks and Ladders: A Journey on a Bridge to Nowhere with American Evangelical Christians pg 31 per reference in OHJ pg 514

Now imagine for a moment that you found out the letter was not really written by one of your friends.

Imagine that it was written by multiple unknown persons pretending that the letter was written by one of your friends

What do you imagine that you would do with such a letter?

The Pauline Corpus is really a compilation by multiple unknown authors of fiction and mythology under the pretense that it was written by a single person called Paul.

The Pauline Corpus is the very worst kind of evidence for the HJ argument.

The Pauline Corpus represents Forgeries, false attribution, fiction, mythology and are non-contemporary.

The Pauline Corpus is worthless as an historical source for the Jesus character.

 

[maximara]

This is beyond absurdity. You have a "new teacher". Does this teacher manifest him or herself by walking into the classroom in the normal way? Not a bit of it. You experience the teacher as a light in the sky, "revealing" various incomprehensible metaphysical things that look like foolishness. You have never met this teacher physically, and those who have met him are your ideological opponents whose teaching you firmly reject.

And people ask themselves why you don't chat about the teacher's conversation or physical traits (he is a light in the sky and a voice - he has NO physical traits) or personal quality. That's an impossible mystery is it? This is all quite ridiculous.

Considering you supposedly talked to this guy's "brother" (remember James? Craig B should, as he has pointed to him often enough ) why is this ridiculous? Unless you admit James is not a biological "brother" but a spiritual brother or some poor sod that Paul believed was Jesus brother ala Prince Philip the brother of John Frum.

The ultimate irony is despite neither Paul or the Gospels giving any real description the average person could describe Jesus: white male of average height in his 30s with brownish to black hair that extends past his shoulders with a short beard. That image can be found as far back as the 6th century (Christ Pantocrator) and yet is not any more demonstrative of an actual person then that for Uncle Sam.

As mentioned before the passage regarding James feels like an after thought.

Unless it is a product of the Greek language the wording is very strange: But other of the apostles saw I none, except James the Lord's brother. (KJV)

Why not simply say 'The only other apostle I saw was James brother in the flesh to the Lord'? Especially as every other time brother or sister comes up Paul is using it in the spiritual sense?

 

[Craig B]

Considering you supposedly talked to this guy's "brother" <snip>
Why not simply say 'The only other apostle I saw was James brother in the flesh to the Lord'? Especially as every other time brother or sister comes up Paul is using it in the spiritual sense?

None of that has anything whatever to do with the "conversations about my new teacher" theme. Nothing at all. Unless you're saying that James was Paul's teacher - and if you do say that I'm going to clobber you with Galatians 2.