The Historical Jesus III

[maximara]

Dejudge - as far as the existence of Jesus is concerned (which is the actual subject of this thread), does it really matter whether or not Paul was a real person?

I have asked this many times and never gotten a reasonable answer. Paul brings NOTHING to the historical Jesus table as he spells out in his seven epistles that he is getting his information (Jesus teaching, and the last supper, etc) via vision.

Even in the Christ Myth world the 'Paul didn't exist' idea gets the hairy eye ball. Even Joseph Wheless who saw this near Illuminati level conspiracy to forge documents by the Church accepted Paul's seven letters as being written by Paul.

 

[Craig B]

Can you recall stating that the Holy Ghost conception and that Jesus was God were Later additions?

Yes. The earlier Paul, Mark and Q contain no such material. These things were written earlier than the Virgin stories. Because the date of composition of the NT is not the same thing as the date of the earliest surviving complete manuscript, dejudge.

You have mis-represented yourself.

Why should I do that, when you do it for me in every post?

 

[dejudge]

Can you recall stating that the Holy Ghost conception and that Jesus was God were Later additions?

Yes. The earlier Paul, Mark and Q contain no such material. These things were written earlier than the Virgin stories. Because the date of composition of the NT is not the same thing as the date of the earliest surviving complete manuscript, dejudge.

Fantastic. Now that you can recall that you stated the Holy Ghost conception and that Jesus was God were later additions why are you using the very same LATER BIGOTED Christian sources to argue that Joseph was the father of Jesus?

You actively use the LATER gMatthew and gJohn with the Holy Ghost conception and the Divine Jesus.

You have confirmed that you are intellectually dishonest.

If the existing manuscripts Papyri 4, Papyri 75 and Papyri 46 are copies of earlier writings then Jesus was God of God, God Creator, Born of a Ghost and the Lord from heaven from the START.



The Pauline Corpus does state that Jesus was the LORD from heaven, God's OWN Son, God Creator and uses the very same NOMINA SACRA for the Lord Jesus as the Lord God of the Jews.

In gMark, the myth character called Jesus IDENTIFIED himself as the Son of God in the trial BEFORE the Sanhedrin and uses the same NOMINA SACRA for the LORD Jesus and the LORD GOD of the Jews.

Jesus of NAZARETH is the LORD GOD in the ENTIRE NT Canon.

Jesus of Nazareth is a MYTH GOD in the ENTIRE NT Canon.

 

[dejudge]

Can you recall stating that the Holy Ghost conception and that Jesus was God were Later additions?

Yes. The earlier Paul, Mark and Q contain no such material. These things were written earlier than the Virgin stories. Because the date of composition of the NT is not the same thing as the date of the earliest surviving complete manuscript, dejudge.

Fantastic. Now that you can recall that you stated the Holy Ghost conception and that Jesus was God were later additions why are you using the very same LATER BIGOTED Christian sources to argue that Joseph was the father of Jesus?

You actively use the LATER gMatthew and gJohn with the Holy Ghost conception and the Divine Jesus.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

If the existing manuscripts Papyri 4, Papyri 75 and Papyri 46 are copies of earlier writings then Jesus was God of God, God Creator, Born of a Ghost and the Lord from heaven from the START.

The Pauline Corpus does state that Jesus was the LORD from heaven, God's OWN Son, God Creator and uses the very same NOMINA SACRA for the Lord Jesus as the Lord God of the Jews.

In gMark, the myth character called Jesus IDENTIFIED himself as the Son of God in the trial BEFORE the Sanhedrin and uses the same NOMINA SACRA for the LORD Jesus and the LORD GOD of the Jews.

Jesus of NAZARETH is the LORD GOD in the ENTIRE NT Canon.

Jesus of Nazareth is a MYTH/FICTION character until historical data can be found.

 

[dejudge]

I have asked this many times and never gotten a reasonable answer. Paul brings NOTHING to the historical Jesus table as he spells out in his seven epistles that he is getting his information (Jesus teaching, and the last supper, etc) via vision.

Even in the Christ Myth world the 'Paul didn't exist' idea gets the hairy eye ball. Even Joseph Wheless who saw this near Illuminati level conspiracy to forge documents by the Church accepted Paul's seven letters as being written by Paul.

I have asked for the evidence of an historical Paul and have NEVER gotten any historical evidence.

Scholars have already argued that Paul was NOT a figure of history and NO-ONE has been able to produce a shred of evidence to contradict their conclusion.

Paul is a figure of mythology and fiction until historical data can be found.

The Pauline Corpus is a compilation of forgeries, false attribution and a Pack of LIES.

Pauline writings were known packs of lies since at least the 4th century.

The Pauline claims about the resurrection of Jesus are complete LIES.

An historical Paul makes NO SENSE.

 

[Craig B]

... In gMark, the myth character called Jesus IDENTIFIED himself as the Son of God in the trial BEFORE the Sanhedrin and uses the same NOMINA SACRA for the LORD Jesus and the LORD GOD of the Jews.

Jesus uses NOMINA SACRA? Are you sure?

 

[IanS]

I have asked this many times and never gotten a reasonable answer. Paul brings NOTHING to the historical Jesus table as he spells out in his seven epistles that he is getting his information (Jesus teaching, and the last supper, etc) via vision.

Even in the Christ Myth world the 'Paul didn't exist' idea gets the hairy eye ball. Even Joseph Wheless who saw this near Illuminati level conspiracy to forge documents by the Church accepted Paul's seven letters as being written by Paul.

Well he ("Paul") doesn't bring anything positive in the way of evidence for a HJ. But he does bring very obvious evidence against a human HJ. Because those letters are very clearly describing a spiritual Jesus known to the author only through heavenly revelation and through a belief in the divine prophetic nature of scripture.

Paul's letters are fairly clear on that - the Jesus figure which those letters describe is a spiritual non-existing figure drawn from the writers vivid fanatical religious imagination.

And if bible scholars and others are right in saying that Paul's letters pre-date the gospels and are therefore the original earliest known description of Jesus, then that would be very clear evidence to show that Jesus was originally conceived only as a spiritual belief and not as a normal human living person.

That would of course also explain the contents of the gospels. Because if the canonical gospels came later (i.e. after Paul’s letters), then it’s obvious that the gospel writers could build on the Jesus ideas of Paul, by doing exactly what Paul repeatedly and insistently said he had done to understand Jesus, and that was simply to search for the meaning in ancient OT scripture ...

... from which, using what bible scholars call “citation fulfilment” the gospel writers could easily construct numerous stories of Jesus as the promised messiah simply by adapting various passages from ancient scripture and interpreting the scripture to mean Jesus as the messiah. And that is of course not even a guess, because it’s a known fact that gospel writers were doing exactly that - they were taking their Jesus stories from the OT, as Helms book makes unarguably clear.

So Paul’s letters do bring that much to the table, and especially so if as almost everyone except dejudge thinks, they pre-date the gospels ... i.e., to summarise - what they bring is (1) the figure of Jesus as a purely spiritual belief drawn from scripture and revelation by God, (2) a very obvious template or guide for later gospel writers to do as Paul did and to search scripture for increasingly elaborated stories adapted to Jesus.


Disclaimer for dejudge - wherever I say “Paul” or “Jesus” or “God”, that mere mention of the name by be is NOT any kind of statement at all by me saying I believe any of those named people were real figures of history.

And when I say “if bible scholars and others are correct in thinking that the letters attributed to someone named “Paul” date from circa.50-60AD and pre-date the gospels”, that does not mean that I am claiming those letters pre-date any gospels. It just means exactly what it says, i.e. that bible scholars and HJ posters here claim the letters are c.50-60AD and that they pre-date the gospels.

 

[IanS]

Yes. The earlier Paul, Mark and Q contain no such material. These things were written earlier than the Virgin stories. Because the date of composition of the NT is not the same thing as the date of the earliest surviving complete manuscript, dejudge. Why should I do that, when you do it for me in every post?

Well Q does not even exist lol.

"Q" is just a hypothesis which bible scholars have proposed (invented) in order say the gospel writers must have got their ideas from some earlier writing that knew about Jesus (as opposed to the gospel writers creating their Jesus stories from passages of the OT, for example ... which of course, we know they actually did).

 

[IanS]

You mean, it's better to use the bigoted writings of Christians polemicists, who have already become imbued with later orthodox dogma? This is one of the odd things you say from time to time, dejudge.

It's better to read the letters attributed to "Paul" and just see for yourself that whenever he says anything about "Jesus" or "the lord", he is almost always absolutely emphatic in saying he obtained those words by "revelation" from heavenly spirits, and "according to scripture".

And even after that, the writer ("Paul") is crystal clear in saying that he had never met a human Jesus. And he never says anyone else ever met a human Jesus, or that anyone as much as even ever claimed to have ever met any human Jesus.

It's absolutely clear, and frankly unarguable, that the Jesus figure in Paul's letters is a figure he "witnessed" only in spiritual belief, and never more than that.

 

[dejudge]

It's better to read the letters attributed to "Paul" and just see for yourself that whenever he says anything about "Jesus" or "the lord", he is almost always absolutely emphatic in saying he obtained those words by "revelation" from heavenly spirits, and "according to scripture".

And even after that, the writer ("Paul") is crystal clear in saying that he had never met a human Jesus. And he never says anyone else ever met a human Jesus, or that anyone as much as even ever claimed to have ever met any human Jesus.

It's absolutely clear, and frankly unarguable, that the Jesus figure in Paul's letters is a figure he "witnessed" only in spiritual belief, and never more than that.

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that Christian writers of antiquity used the Pauline Corpus to argue that Jesus Christ the LORD GOD from heaven BODILY RESURRECTED.

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that Christian writers of antiquity used the Pauline Corpus to argue that Jesus was GOD in the Flesh.

See "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian.

The authors of the Pauline Corpus claimed to be WITNESSES of the BODILY Resurrection of Jesus AFTER he was Buried.

 

[dejudge]

So Paul’s letters do bring that much to the table, and especially so if as almost everyone except dejudge thinks, they pre-date the gospels ... i.e., to summarise - what they bring is (1) the figure of Jesus as a purely spiritual belief drawn from scripture and revelation by God, (2) a very obvious template or guide for later gospel writers to do as Paul did and to search scripture for increasingly elaborated stories adapted to Jesus.

You have been caught in your own trap.

You have given the impression that you don't know and don't care when the Pauline Corpus was composed but say OPENLY "almost everyone except dejudge thinks they pre-date the gospels".

Why did you not include yourself in the statement?

Surely, based on your disclaimer, you should have said "almost everyone except IANS and dejudge think they pre-date the gospels".

Disclaimer for dejudge - wherever I say “Paul” or “Jesus” or “God”, that mere mention of the name by be is NOT any kind of statement at all by me saying I believe any of those named people were real figures of history.

And when I say “if bible scholars and others are correct in thinking that the letters attributed to someone named “Paul” date from circa.50-60AD and pre-date the gospels”, that does not mean that I am claiming those letters pre-date any gospels. It just means exactly what it says, i.e. that bible scholars and HJ posters here claim the letters are c.50-60AD and that they pre-date the gospels.

What nonsense you post.

I have NO interest in your baseless convenient "MOST PEOPLE" argument.

You have forgotten to tell us that ALL PEOPLE who claim the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE have ZERO evidence.

You very well know that there is NO actual historical data to support the claim that the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE.

You OPENLY and conveniently disassociate yourself from the very baseless claim but plaster my name in your post.

Why???

 

[IanS]

You have been caught in your own trap.

You have given the impression that you don't know and don't care when the Pauline Corpus was composed but say OPENLY "almost everyone except dejudge thinks they pre-date the gospels".

Why did you not include yourself in the statement?

Surely, based on your disclaimer, you should have said "almost everyone except IANS and dejudge think they pre-date the gospels".

Nope. You are wrong again lol.

Please show where I have ever said that I think Paul's letters were written after the gospels.

Just quote from any post at all here where I have ever said that.

Disclaimer for dejudge - wherever I say “Paul” or “Jesus” or “God”, that mere mention of the name by be is NOT any kind of statement at all by me saying I believe any of those named people were real figures of history.

And when I say “if bible scholars and others are correct in thinking that the letters attributed to someone named “Paul” date from circa.50-60AD and pre-date the gospels”, that does not mean that I am claiming those letters pre-date any gospels. It just means exactly what it says, i.e. that bible scholars and HJ posters here claim the letters are c.50-60AD and that they pre-date the gospels.

What nonsense you post.

1. I have NO interest in your baseless convenient "MOST PEOPLE" argument. 2..You have forgotten to tell us that ALL PEOPLE who claim the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE have ZERO evidence. 3. You very well know that there is NO actual historical data to support the claim that the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE. 4. You OPENLY and conveniently disassociate yourself from the very baseless claim but plaster my name in your post.
Why???

Well, yet again the "nonsense" here is proven to be entirely yours. Let's look at what you just said -

In the first highlight numbered by me as "1" above, you say -

1. "I have NO interest in your baseless convenient "MOST PEOPLE" argument."

But in the posts #271 & #273 that you are quoting I did not say "MOST PEOPLE" (and that is you emphatically shouting it in capitals, by the way). What I wrote was -

a. "It just means exactly what it says, i.e. that bible scholars and HJ posters here claim the letters are c.50-60AD and that they pre-date the gospels."

And -

b. “and especially so if as almost everyone except dejudge thinks, they pre-date the gospels”

And that is of course true. Would you like to argue that those two statements are not true?

Would you really like to dispute that almost everyone here and almost all bible scholars, say they believe Paul’s letters pre-date the gospels and were probably written circa.50-60AD .... do you really want to argue that is not a true statement to say almost all those people say they believe that?


In the next highlight numbered "2", you say -

"2.You have forgotten to tell us that ALL PEOPLE who claim the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE have ZERO evidence."
How do you know that I "forgot" any such thing?

I do not forget it at all. Contrary to what you just wrote, I have never said here that I know that nobody has any evidence at all that the "Pauline Corpus" "was written c50-60 CE".

Please quote any post from me where I ever said there is no academic or other evidence to suggest that the "Pauline Corpus" could not have been written in the years circa.50-60AD.

Your next highlight, numbered "3", you say this -

"3. You very well know that there is NO actual historical data to support the claim that the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE."
Please show where and how I have said that I "know very well that there is NO actual historical data to support the claim that the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE". Please quote where any post of mine has ever said that.

Your next highlight "4", you say -

"4. You OPENLY and conveniently disassociate yourself from the very baseless claim but plaster my name in your post"

Your name is not "plastered" anywhere by me. You are on an open public forum and it was you who choose your username "dejudge". In that footnote I am making it clear for you (though you still appear to have exactly Zero % understanding) that -


A. wherever I say “Paul” or “Jesus” or “God”, that mere mention of the name by be is NOT any kind of statement at all by me saying I believe any of those named people were real figures of history.

B. when I say “if bible scholars and others are correct in thinking that the letters attributed to someone named “Paul” date from circa.50-60AD and pre-date the gospels”, that does not mean that I am claiming those letters pre-date any gospels. It just means exactly what it says, i.e. that bible scholars and HJ posters here claim the letters are c.50-60AD and that they pre-date the gospels.[/QUOTE]


OK so you are making a whole load of new accusations there. Accusing me of the following -

1. making a baseless argument in my posts #271 & #273 where I talk about "MOST PEOPLE" claiming Paul's letters were written circa.50-60AD

2. where you accuse me of "(forgotten) forgetting to tell us that ALL PEOPLE who claim the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE have ZERO evidence".

3. where you accuse me of "very well knowing that there is NO actual historical data to support the claim that the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE."

4. where you accuse me of "OPENLY and conveniently disassociate yourself from the very baseless claim but plaster my name in your post."


OK so that's three (if not four) direct accusations from you concerning what I said in my posts #271 &/or #273 (which are the two posts you actually quoted). So please now be certain to reply with actual quotes from my posts where I said each of those things you just accused me of ...

... be sure to post the quotes to support your accusations.

 

[dejudge]

It's better to read the letters attributed to "Paul" and just see for yourself that whenever he says anything about "Jesus" or "the lord", he is almost always absolutely emphatic in saying he obtained those words by "revelation" from heavenly spirits, and "according to scripture".

The Pauline Corpus do clearly state that Paul was SEEN of the resurrected Jesus AFTER he was buried.

And even after that, the writer ("Paul") is crystal clear in saying that he had never met a human Jesus. And he never says anyone else ever met a human Jesus, or that anyone as much as even ever claimed to have ever met any human Jesus.

The Pauline Corpus does clearly state that the JEWS KILLED Jesus, the Son of God made of a woman.

The Pauline Corpus does state that Pauline writers were WITNESSES that God raised Jesus from the dead.

It's absolutely clear, and frankly unarguable, that the Jesus figure in Paul's letters is a figure he "witnessed" only in spiritual belief, and never more than that.

It is absolutely clear and frankly unarguable that Christians writers of antiquity used the Pauline Corpus to ARGUE that Jesus, God's Own Son made of a woman was On earth in the Flesh.

It is absolutely unarguable that "On the Flesh" attributed to Tertullian used the Pauline Corpus to ARGUE that Jesus the Son of God existed in the Flesh.

It is absolutely uarguable that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian used the Pauline Corpus to ARGUE that the Son of God was NOT a Phantom but was God ON earth in the Flesh.

It is absolutely unarguable that "Against Hersies" attributed to Irenaeus used the Pauline Corpus to ARGUE AGAINST so-called Heretics who claimed Jesus was WITHOUT fLESH

It is absolutely unarguable that the Church writers used the Pauline Corpus to TEACH the DOCTRINE that Jesus was GOD INCARNATE.

The Pauline Corpus does NOT contain the Heresy that Jesus did NOT come to earth and did not come in the Flesh.

The Pauline Corpus is absolutely clear that Jesus was GOD'S SON MADE of a WOMAN who was KILLED by the Jews and that Paul was a WITNESS that God RAISED Jesus from the dead.

Galatians 4:4 NIV
4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law


1 Thessalonians 2 ---You suffered from your own countrymen31 the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out


1 Corinthians ----15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV ---8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

[maximara]

An obvious stumbling block would be whether people could read or write. I mentioned that a few pages back, where it was said that people were apparently better educated than we might think as a result of Roman rule. But again I doubt very much that would apply to the vast mass of the population in a region like Judea, because for one thing iirc (and without specifically checking) even in Europe as late as about (rough guess) 1400-1500 less than around 50% of the general population could read or write fluently ... they might be able to write their name, or recite a famous part of the bible or a recite a local law, but they could not sit down and read a book, or write a proper letter afaik.

This one of those don't know areas.

Here is what Di Renzo citing Dupont says:

Like all Roman children, Tiro was sent to elementary school, the ludus litterarius, to learn reading and writing. This was not an act of generosity but necessity. Rome was the most literate society of the classical world, “a civilization based on the book and the register,” and “no one, either free or slave, could afford to be illiterate”:

The written word was all around them, in both public and private life: laws, calendars, regulations at shrines, and funeral epitaphs were engraved in stone or bronze. The Republic amassed huge archives of reports on every aspect of public life. Praetors and magistrates kept records of every judgment that was handed down, . . . [which] formed the cornerstone of Roman jurisprudence. . . . At home, too, writing was important. Noble families . . . had their own [ancestral] archives. . . . But all families . . . kept books of farming tips, prayers, and remedies. Writing played a vital role in business too: contracts of sale, hire, association and estate management were all recorded on tablets and registers. Then there were the innumerable letters that Romans traveling far from home sent back to their friends in the City. (Dupont 223)


"However, the evidence showing that reading and writing were widely practiced in Jesus’ age grows with every discovery of a new inscription. Much of this evidence comes from religious and governmental circles, but a great deal of it does not." - Millard


"According to Philo and Josephus, approximate contemporaries of Jesus,
Jewish parents taught their children Torah and how to read it." [...] - Craig A. Evans "Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus"

Josephus even states that "“(The Law) orders that (children) shall be taught to read" (Ag. Ap. 2.25 §204).

So you have an culture that was dependent on literacy interacting with a culture where literacy was mandatory

So instead of the illiterate backwater the historical Jesus crowd tries to portray Judea as we may have what was likely one of the most literate places in the empire outside of Rome and Alexandra themselves.


Di Renzo, A (2000) “His master's voice: Tiro and the rise of the Roman secretarial class,” Journal of technical writing and communication, vol. 30, (2) 155-168

Dupont, Florence. (1989) Daily Life in Ancient Rome Tr. Christopher Woodall. Oxford: Blackwell; pg 223

Millard, Alan (2003) Literacy in the Time of Jesus - Could His Words Have Been Recorded in His Lifetime? Biblical Archaeology Review 29:04, Jul/Aug 2003.

 

[maximara]

I've pointed out this fallacious reasoning many times before, but why not do it again?

Here is the Mythicist logic.

1. If Paul had no real existence in the days of Aretas, the NT canon is historical GARBAGE.
2. The NT canon is historical GARBAGE
3. Therefore Paul had no real existence in the days of Aretas.

As I have said the majority of the Mythicists ACCEPT Paul existed as a human being and wrote what would eventual become seven epistles c 50- c60 CE.

In fact classic mythist, Arthur Drews flat out stated "Without Jesus the rise of Christianity can be quite well understood, without Paul not so."

It can be shown that the NT canon is historical garbage without going to Paul.


The Gospels are historical (and geographical) train wrecks requiring Pontius Pilate and Sanhedrin to behave totally contrary to what history shows.

Acts is even more a of a historical shambles.

Given Jesus' short time on the cross and reports of him being out and about afterwards, certainly the Romans should have at least considered the idea they had been tricked somehow which would have resulted in a man hunt for this guy.

Even if that option didn't occur to the Roman the idea that somebody simply stole the body (a capital crime) would have resulting in another man hunt...only this time for the body snatchers.

If there were actual guards at the tomb then thing become even more problematic:

If the tomb was guarded by Romans then the first then Pilate or their very own Centurion would have done would have executed them for dereliction of duty. (The Roman army took orders very seriously. Our term "decimation" comes from the practice of a legion who had failed in its duty drawing lots to see who would be the 10% that the remainder would beat to death)

Since theft of a body was a capital offense under Roman law if the guards had been temple they would have been executed for allowing someone to flaunt Roman authority.

Regardless of 2 or 3 the next project would to be to find the thieves.

In Acts NONE of this happens and when we get to what passes for actual 'trial' transcripts things go even more wonky.

Paul's non mention by secular history can be explained by him being at the time being a relatively obscure nobody that Acts latter turning into this person critical to the movement.


History can be wonky like that.

Everyone knows of Jack the Ripper but who knows who Herman Webster Mudgett was?

Jack the Ripper killed 5 known victims while Mudgett admitted to 27 and is thought to have killed as many as 200 in Chicago.

 

[Mcreal]

.

... the majority of the Mythicists ACCEPT Paul existed as a human being and wrote what would eventual become seven epistles c 50- c60 CE.

Which is kind of weird, given the nature of the Pauline texts, and the assessments of other, such as the Dutch Radicals, that the Pauline writings represent a community initially at odds with the community that wrote or initiated the Gospels, and that Paul is a literary [allegorical] figure.

It would seem to be just assertion that the Pauline epistles were written c c 50- c60 CE (after von Harnack?)

In fact classic mythist, Arthur Drews flat out stated "Without Jesus the rise of Christianity can be quite well understood, without Paul not so."

It can be shown that the NT canon is historical garbage without going to Paul.

Is that a view on the role of the Pauline theology? The emphasis on the resurrection (especially 1 Cor. 15:12-20)?

The Gospels are historical (and geographical) train wrecks requiring Pontius Pilate and Sanhedrin to behave totally contrary to what history shows.

Acts is even more a of a historical shambles.

 

[Craig B]

As I have said the majority of the Mythicists ACCEPT Paul existed as a human being and wrote what would eventual become seven epistles c 50- c60 CE.

Yes I know that, but I still understand the Paul is myth position of the ultra-Mythicists. The evidence for Paul is exactly the same as the evidence for Jesus - a reading of the NT. If you rule this out, or provocatively declare its perusal to be a Christian Faith based undertaking, and reject a Historical Jesus on that account, you must reject Paul too. There is not a shred of non scriptural evidence for his existence, and miracles are attributed to him.

Can you not see how the ultra-Mythicists must flee in horror, rending their garments, and covering their heads with ashes, when they read expressions like this?

Paul's non mention by secular history can be explained by him being at the time being a relatively obscure nobody that Acts latter turning into this person critical to the movement.

You see, the HJ people explain Jesus' non-mention in much the same way.

 

[IanS]

Yes I know that, but I still understand the Paul is myth position of the ultra-Mythicists. The evidence for Paul is exactly the same as the evidence for Jesus - a reading of the NT. If you rule this out, or provocatively declare its perusal to be a Christian Faith based undertaking, and reject a Historical Jesus on that account, you must reject Paul too. There is not a shred of non scriptural evidence for his existence, and miracles are attributed to him.

Well, firstly as Max has just pointed out to you, hardly any "mythicists" have bothered to argue that Paul might not have been a real person. So at best you are talking about an absolutely miniscule number of people.

But secondly - nobody really cares if Paul was a real person or not. What matters is only what someone wrote in those letters. It's the contents of the letters that matter, not whether the writer really was a person named Paul.

That's not at all the case for Jesus though. In his case, his existence as a real person is absolutely essential as the basis of worldwide Christian faith.

Can you not see how the ultra-Mythicists must flee in horror, rending their garments, and covering their heads with ashes, when they read expressions like this? You see, the HJ people explain Jesus' non-mention in much the same way.

People "fleeing in horror"? Where? Can you point them out? Where are all these people running about with horrified expressions?

 

[maximara]

Yes I know that, but I still understand the Paul is myth position of the ultra-Mythicists.

Which are equivalent to the ultra-historicists; you know the ones who take every word of the NT as true doing such thing try to make Matthew and Luke agres

The evidence for Paul is exactly the same as the evidence for Jesus - a reading of the NT.

With ONE key difference: a matter of scale. Acts is a clear fiction, the first to second century equivalent of a penny dreadful or dime novel with Paul and company the main characters.

This leaves the seven Epistles that have been identified a common author as being Paul's and they don't indicate a person that was very important in the large scheme of things.

If you rule this out, or provocatively declare its perusal to be a Christian Faith based undertaking, and reject a Historical Jesus on that account, you must reject Paul too.

Again there is one key difference: we have seven Epistles that have a common author who is generally identified as Paul.

If it wasn't for the printing press and part of New Mexico promoting the crap out of it for tourists who would even remember John Ballou Newbrough's little 1882 movement? Paul is in more or less the same boat.

There is not a shred of non scriptural evidence for his existence, and miracles are attributed to him.

That assumes our Acts is the true story and not say Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and Acts of Thomas all of which look very much like our Acts.

Can you not see how the ultra-Mythicists must flee in horror, rending their garments, and covering their heads with ashes, when they read expressions like this?

No more then ultra-historicists flee in horror when told there are no miracles, there is no freaking way Matthew and Luke agree without going ad hoc happy, and that the trials of the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate have no more historical validity then the trial in The Devil and Daniel Webster.

You see, the HJ people explain Jesus' non-mention in much the same way.

Which has been addressed several times:

If Jesus was a no body that no one noticed during his life time then how did he become so important later?

Why isn't there anything regarding Jesus actual life on earth until Paul is supposedly dead and gone?

Why doesn't any Church Father reference passages that tentatively can be linked to our gospels until the 130s CE and we have to wait until c180 CE for a mammoth quote dump?

 

[Craig B]

No more then ultra-historicists flee in horror when told there are no miracles, there is no freaking way Matthew and Luke agree without going ad hoc happy, and that the trials of the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate have no more historical validity then the trial in The Devil and Daniel Webster.

Sssh! We don't want Ehrman or Dawkins (who believe in a historical Jesus) to find out that the miracles didn't happen, Matthew and Luke can't be made to agree, and the trials before the Sanhedrin and PP can't possibly have happened, at least as described.