dog-on

So how are we supposed to come to any historically likely conclusion at all?

GakuseiDon

Easily. We have the letters; they appear to be attested to fairly early. Does this prove that they are original? No, no proof. But it seems likely, unless you have reasons to show that it is not likely.

The letters seem to use a common style and similar terminology, so they appear to be by the same person. Is this proof? No, not proof. But it seems likely, unless you have reasons to show that it isn't likely. Some passages are likely to be interpolations, and people provide reasons for that.

Internal clues and tradition appear to point to that writer being called "Paul", and as writing in the mid First Century. Is this proof? No, not proof. But it seems likely, unless you have reasons to show that it isn't likely.

This Paul appears to be referring to a crucified man who died in Paul's recent past. Is there proof? No, no proof. And in this case, I guess you don't think it is likely, and you may have good reasons for that.

Do you have good reasons for the last? Or have you invalidated Paul from any analysis whatsoever, making any kind of case from Paul impossible?

GakuseiDon

Nothing to do with mythicism, but: Actually, one interesting thing is that the Dionysian caves were thought to be places of "mirth and jollity". As the note in the link says, "There were in Naxos, on Parnassus, and elsewhere various caves dedicated to Bacchus, i. e. to mirth and jollity".

Plutarch talks about a "sweet smell" emanating from the cavern, causing "the souls filled with these sweet perfumes" to be "dissolved in mirth, and kept embracing one another, and jollity and laughter". Methane gas has a sweet smell, and some attributed the Delphi oracles to get "high" on such gases when they gave their prophecies. (Though I've read others who disagree with the notion.) It's an interesting coincidence, anyway.

dog-on

Ah GDon, you are not playing fair...

Paul may appear to be referring to a crucified man who died in Paul's recent past, or just as likely, somone inserted some lines into Paul from which you are then drawing a conclusion.

The point is that the evidence is contaminated.

Now, if we are to use this contaminated evidence, let's use it all.

How does Paul know Jesus, based specifically on what Paul himself says?

GakuseiDon

Sorry dog-on, sounds like you've given yourself a licence to remove anything inconvenient. Maybe someone else might want to have a go? Thanks for your time.

dog-on

Nah, just very careful with what I take for granted.

The reliability of copies of ancient religious texts just set those alarm bells a-ringin'

And besides, I did allow you to use the text, just am now asking you to use all of it...

aa5874

But, what you are claiming is just a load of crap. You have stated and have produce an historical Jesus story which you yourself have said is the product of guesswork.


You have in effect shown that there is nothing to the historical Jesus. You have no credible historical source so you have resorted to guesswork.

Your credibility and veracity are questionable.

You appear only to be interested in propagating propaganda about your HJ.

You know and have admitted your HJ is based on guesswork.

You know the MJ is based DIRECTLY on sources of antiquity including the NT and the Church writings.

The MJ is based on Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.34-35, John 1, Mark 16.6, ACTS 1.9, Mark 3.5, Mark 9.31, Galatians 1, Mark 9.2 and many more sources of antiquity.

Please, review the records of antiquity and stop guessing, it is in black and white that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

gurugeorge

There is a precise technical term for the distinction I'm trying to make that I've come across in my intellectual travels, but I can't remember it. A distinction between the content of a story and what we can say about it.

IN THE STORY ABOUT JESUS, Jesus is fleshly, he is supposed to have lived on earth, etc., etc. He's also, clearly, got some sort of divine element.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY, to uphold the mythicist, or at least a-historicist case, to show (as Earl Doherty does, for example) that the STORY held Jesus to be non-fleshly.

Bracket Acts (it's dubious - it may have some historical truths in it, but it's clearly a tendentious and much later document), suppose Paul is the earliest writing we have. There's nothing else apart from Hebrews that seems to come from the same period (and Hebrews supports the mythicist case more than it hinders it).

In Paul, the picture we have, that's supported by what Paul alone says, is that he had (what we would call) a visionary experience, that he got his gospel directly from the visionary entity (i.e. the visionary entity spoke to him and gave him some sort of message or story - this is unremarkable, it happens, it's a capacity of the human mind to have such subjectively real-seeming visions, and it doesn't require any psychopathology to account for it).

Therefore, the CONTENT OF THE STORY Paul has, comes from the visionary entity. The content of the story clealy involves some fleshly aspects. But, from our point of view, there is no evidence of a real human being Jesus who Paul knew, or knew people who knew, there was just a man, Paul (and possibly some people before him - note, again, that it's quite ambiguous whether the Jerusalem people knew a human being called Jesus), who had a visionary experience OF AN ENTITY CALLED "JESUS" (whose story, that the entity itself told Paul, contained fleshly elements).

This is consistent with science, the history of religion (as originating largely in visionary and mystical experiences) and with the evidence if you take it sequentially (i.e. Paul, speaking for himself, uncontaminated by later points of view, first).

The only thing that would weight the account more to the historicist side is if there was some inkling from independent sources that there was a living human being of that name. (And actually, for all we know, the real historical Jesus might well be one of the other Jesii mentioned by Josephus - one of the nutcases or revolutionaries. That has always seemed to me the most likely historicist line of inquiry, and it has always surprised me that people don't look into it more seriously.)

Otherwise, there is no NEED to look for a historical Jesus, since the visionary explanation is quite satisfactory and self-sufficient, and supported by the extant evidence. It does exactly what it says on the tin - i.e. we have no evidence of anybody from roundabout that time reporting any words of a human being called Jesus, we have no evidence of anybody from roundabout that time KNOWING PERSONALLY a human being called Jesus. All we do have, the ONLY POSITIVE EVIDENCE WE HAVE, is a person reporting about a Jesus character in visionary experience (and also, possibly, reporting about another bunch of people who had visionary experience of Jesus too).

Why look any further?

Jayrok

Are you saying that it is possible that there was a reformed Jew named Jesus who had disciples and taught in Palistine, etc, and this person was the basis for which the gospels were written? And that the mythicist position is that the Jesus depicted in the gospels is a myth? i.e. the miracle working, Son of God/God in the flesh/Logos figure is myth heaped upon the historical figure who was crucified? Is that the central mythicist position?

I thought the position was that there was no historical person, even at the root of the gospels and Paul. That Paul and perhaps Mark constructed the Jesus character solely from the Hebrew Scriptures (as well as writings of Josephus in Mark's case).

Jayrok

GDon, this is confusing. You are not a mythicist from what I've read from you. But do you also not believe Jesus of the gospels is historical? Can you clarify your position? Or do you believe Jesus was a real person, just not divine... and that legends were heaped upon this real person by NT writers?

Thanks,

Jay