Doug Shaver

That text is proof enough against a claim that when Paul talked about learning something from the lord, he could only have meant that he learned it indirectly through human intermediaries.

No Robots

He's saying that if we proceed from the premise that the mythicists are correct, then we still have to explain the historical phenomenon of this myth's impact. When do so, we are confronted at every turn by the image of the man. There is simply no escape.

Vorkosigan

LOL. It's a marker that a new bracket has to be formed when you bracket's Jesus' speeches. It is purely literary.

Michael

Rick Sumner

You're putting words in my mouth. Nobody said anything about what Paul "could only" do. What was addressed was the suggestion that Paul received his last supper "DIRECTLY FROM THE LORD"[sic]. I never suggested that only one reading of the passage was correct, I suggested that without the addition of the word "directly," the reading suggested by Clivedurdle was not necessarily correct.

Though, as an aside, that text isn't proof enough for anything of the sort. We know what Paul is talking about when he speaks of how he received his gospel. We can't say the same here, because he doesn't qualify--it certainly doesn't have the same scriptural backing of his gospel to the Gentiles. It's not a parallel in thought, except as the most proof-texting sort. This isn't to necessarily say that your reading of 1Cor is incorrect, a simple reading of the passage itself allows for it. But that's established on the grounds of 1Cor itself, not on efforts to parallel it to his gospel--his gospel is unrelated, fundamentally different right down to even the basest level of tangibility. His gospel is a concept (the salvation of the Gentiles), not an action (the Lord's Supper).

I shouldn't have to deal with such fundamental alterations of the nature of my argument.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

michael wellenberg

It is the usual way of people who have no good arguments left and get into defence to take refuge in insulting and imputing. By doing this you deprive any further discussion of its base.

Clivedurdle

AN Wilson also wrote God's Funeral - a brilliant discussion of the end of faith in Victorian England - "those dreadful hammers". OK he is not a theologian or historian - he is a good populariser and talented author and commentator. It might be interesting to get him to revisit "Jesus" from a mythicist perspective. He also wrote "Paul" Another edition of that from a gnostic perspective might also be fascinating.

Ignostic Morgan

Why would a rational person care for Yeshua? His morality is defective. See Michael Martin's books and others on that subject.

Geetarmoore

I so much agree.

This is the real heart of the issue of Paul. The apologists say that Paul didn't need to tell the stories of Jesus, or talk about the things that he said, because 1) everyone already knew these things, and 2) Paul had other things to discuss.

This is just plainly repulsive to logic in every way.

If this is true, then I should be able to go into a church and sit down for an hour and not hear anything about the life of Jesus - for I already know these things, as does everyone else. Why waste time going over them again? Why have a Gospel reading? Why preach a message tied to that Gospel reading?

The plain fact is, it's because Jesus is the authority. Christians need to have Christ at the basis of the message for it to carry any weight. If Paul wanted to have his message taken seriously, he would have invoked Jesus' authority on several issues, had he understood what the later Gospel writers did. The fact that he didn't, is beyond curious, and only one of many reasons that Doherty's argument is so persuasive...

Didymus

Please explain: Why is speaking in the third person "not something a fictional Christ is ever likely to do"?

Fictional characters do exactly what their authors intend them to do. Why wouldn't Mark, the interpreter of a legendary Jesus, have him speaking in the third person?

That style of discourse is often attributed to the Cynics, and it's indicative of humility, obscurity and self-effacement, characteristics associated with Wisdom, the "humble servant" and Jesus' "descending/ascending" predecessor in the OT.

You need to make a much better case to support your apparent supposition that Mark could not or even would not have had Jesus speaking in that manner.

Why not?

And what in the hell is meant by "would not necessarily be unlikely"? It's hard to be sure from that tangled phrase, but it sounds like you're hedging all over the place.

Not all mythicists think alike, i.e., there are differing views on whether Paul's Jesus existed purely in a spiritual or quasi-spiritual realm, or in "the mists of history." But it would be entertaining to learn what you consider to be "fallacious and inconsistent."

Didymus

Rick Sumner

What are your references for this? More specifically, which primary sources are you familiar with in which either a) A Cynic speaks in the third-person or b) Someone attributes this tendency to them? If it's the former, then to maintain your position that it is definably Cynic would require several examples, as examples can be produced from non-Cynics as well (eg Timon Philius).

Regards,
Rick Sumner