maryhelena

:banghead:

bacht

No, because then we have to accept all sorts of supernatural gibberish, including angels, miracles, and resurrection from the dead. Also there are centuries of harmonizing that we've had to endure to make all the pieces 'fit'

The absolute simplest model is fiction from start to finish. I'm prepared to accept that some of the epistles started from sincere writers but are no longer saying what the authors intended. The gospels and Acts are clearly secondary, reactions to religious developments long after Pilate and Tiberius, and quite possibly after bar-Kochba.

ApostateAbe

My apologies. Paul was a second-century person. OK, that requires that the "reputed pillars" (James, Cephas and John) were engineered into the gospel accounts? Yeah, I think that is a position popular among mythicists, and, again, it makes the model much less simpler and more ad hoc than before. There seems to be little, if any, evidence for the gospels sourcing Paul. Maybe if the model was fully laid out, I would be less likely to make mistakes with my own assumptions.

For example, how does the preterist view change the dynamic? Do you really think that Christians were preterists from the beginning, and they are not an awkward adaptation to the failed deadline as I would strongly suspect? Do John 21:22-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8 not mean what I think they mean?

ApostateAbe

Well, the Biblicist view is "simplest" if one overlooks all of the problems and reams of improbabilities. The fairytale model requires that the authors made up stories, and the Biblicist model holds that they told the truth, so the Biblicist model is simpler, if you don't worry about the evidence.

spamandham

...duplicate post

dog-on

1. Original Paul does not need to be 2nd century
2. Mark seems to know Paul
3. Why assume flesh when spirit works even better.

spamandham

Considering that 6 of the 13 have already been determine to be exactly this, Occam would tell us the odds are high that the remaining 7 are also inauthentic. That said, even if they are legitimate and really do date to the 1st century, IIRC, there is but a single sentence within the genuine Pauline corpus that ties Jesus down to the 1st century, so I don't see how Paul's letters undermine this idea in any way.

I think you're expectations for critical textual analysis by the authors and their audience are a bit unreasonable. When Jesus says "this generation", both the author and the audience could take that as their own generation, just like modern Christians do, particularly when almost everyone was illiterate and the gospels would have been read to the audience.

...and Snow White is real history because the probability that someone would write a fairy tale is astronomically small. Come on Abe, do you honestly believe it's unlikely for people to write fictional works? Won't you at least agree that the magical aspects of Jesus - which are central to his character - are fictional?

spamandham

If the gospels are ahistorical, then every historical figure in them was engineered in. Do you believe the birth story is rooted in actual historical events? If not, then you have already conceded that Matthew and Luke, as a minimum, did exactly what you are implying is unlikely, since it's a virtual certainty that Herod's role in the birth story is complete bullshit.

(BTW, James was a common name, so it's not clear that Paul's James is even supposed to be the Gospel James, and Cephas is always just hand wavingly assumed to be the Gospel Peter)

ApostateAbe

OK, which position do you take? Which model do you stand behind? Do you think Paul was some guy in the second century, or do you think all the Pauline epistles are forgeries (he never existed)? You don't have to cling to a single position on Paul with absolute certainty, but I don't want to be analyzing two conflicting models at the same time. Just choose the model that you take to be most probable.
Anyone defending an unlikely theory of the New Testament can make bizarre interpretations to make their own model seem consistent and sensible. The apologetic interpretation is that a "generation" is really a large expanse of time. Your interpretation does not make much more sense. The accounts in the synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was speaking to his disciples and the people gathered around him at the time he made those apocalyptic deadlines. It is a view that seems to make perfect sense on the face of it, and it is strongly reinforced by John 21:22-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8. I don't need to make any ad hoc explanation. I like to say that I read the Bible much more literally than any fundamentalist, and I hold to that position, because it really is the best way to get the most probable interpretations and the most probable models.
Sure, yes, I agree, though I would use the word, "mythical," not "fictional." I would take the presumption of historical intent to be generally more expected than fiction, but that is not important. The point is that the "simplest" explanations are not an advantage when you ignore evidence and probabilities.

aa5874

1. There is no evidence that the Pauline writings were before the Jesus was developed. The Pauline audience appear to be familiar with the name Jesus. Paul referred to his Lord and Saviour as JESUS over 150 times.

The Pauline writings are AFTER the JESUS story was developed and the Pauline writers KNEW the story that Jesus died, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

2. The author of gMark did NOT seem to KNOW the Pauline writings. The author did not use any detail of Jesus specific to the Pauline writings. The author of gMark did not claim Jesus was born of a woman or that over 500 people saw Jesus in a non-historical resurrected state.

And further, all the details about Jesus in gMark are not found anywhere in the Pauline writings and even the Hebrew Scriptures used by the author of gMark to fabricate his Jesus are not even found in the Pauline writings.

The author of gMark did NOT seem to know the Pauline writings.

3. Paul assumed Jesus had flesh. Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed in the night after he had supped, that Jesus was crucified, that he shed his blood, died, and was resurrected.

In antiquity it was believed that flesh was corruptible or could perish and that that humans required food. It was also believed that a SPIRIT could not be crucified. Jesus ate, was crucified and perished in the Pauline writings.


The Pauline writings appear to be about a non-historical entity called Jesus the Messiah who was the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God who was betrayed, crucified and was RAISED from the dead.

No such entity can be traced to have EVER existed in Galilee or any where in Jerusalem in the 1st century before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.