aa5874

Before you start to make your imagination run wild the veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline writings MUST first be established.

You must understand that if it is PRESUMED the Pauline writings are from the 1st century when they were NOT then the entire history of the Church is disturbed.

There is NO credible evidence whatsoever to assume the Pauline letters are credible and historically accurate when it is argued by the Experts that the Pauline writings appear to be manipulated.

The veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline cannot be recovered since the earliest DATED Pauline writings support a LATE composition.

EarlDoherty

A very simplistic way of thinking about it. And wrong. The standard dating of Mark to shortly after 70 cannot be sustained. And the record hardly shows that whenever it was written, that a full changeover took place within one generation. Nor did Mark create an immediate impression that it constituted history. That idea spread only spottily in uncoordinated places over half a century. Just look at the epistles of Ignatius. Clearly an idea that only some adopted, with a lot of resistance going on for some time, and a very gradual accumulation of details (from the Gospels) known within the course of that slow absorption.

And as more and more people were won over to the idea--because they liked it, and because there was no one around to argue against the growing interpretation of the Gospels, and because naysayers were simply shouted down (called "mad dogs" by people like Ignatius or whoever wrote his letters)--the historical Jesus took root in the Christian mind.

This is not a scenario just picked from thin air, with no concrete support. Anyone following my series on Vridar will know that I have been presenting a careful analysis of the documents spanning that period to demonstrate that this is precisely what took place. (And of course it's all in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.)

What is lacking is a discrediting of that scenario (perhaps starting with a simple understanding of it, which would require--heaven forbid!--that our resident anti-mythicists here would actually familiarize themselves with it, rather than just keep parroting their condemnation based on ignorance and a refusal to investigate my case.

Earl Doherty

Toto

The gospels are probably a bit later, and it is not so clear to me that Mark was based on the assumption that there was a historical Jesus. And the historicists were probably not learning about Jesus from their parents as much as they were from a preacher.

So I don't think you can be so confident that a generation of Christians who believed in a spiritual Jesus taught their children about a historical Jesus. It was probably more a case of a generation of Christians who believed in a spiritual Savior started to think that Spirit had descended to earth and played out a drama on earth, or someplace close to earth (not that it really made any big difference to them exactly where this drama of salvation happened.)

In our modern times, saying that Jesus was a spirit implies that he never existed. In those times, people believed in spirits, so that would not be an issue.

But more to the point, between Paul and the time the gospels were finalized, there was the Jewish War, which disrupted the society and theology of the area. Our historical knowledge of what happened in those years with Christianity is minimal.

aa5874

Your statement is utterly unsubstantiated. You very well have no credible corroborative evidence that the Pauline writings were composed before c 70 CE.

It is most remarkable that you promote Chinese Whispers on BC&H.

Please tell us when any Pauline writer claimed they wrote a letter to a church???

Will Wiley

I doubt it would fit with Wikipedia guidelines.

Wikipedia:No original research

spin

The earliest source we have is still Paul and he doesn't indicate that any other messianist believed in Jesus other than those he himself converted. There is no evidential basis to your claims.

aa5874

Again, more Chinese Whispers. Even the Pauline writer claimed that there were WRITTEN sources that stated Jesus DIED for our Sins, was buried, and resurrected on the Third day.

The Jesus story of the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection and Post-resurrection visits were ALREADY written or known BEFORE the Pauline writer composed the letter to the Corinthians.

Kapyong

Gday,

I gave reasons, not incredulity - it's an argument from multiple silences, there being numerous writers who didn't mention Jesus, some of whom would be expected to. Philo is the best example for the reasons I gave. Some later Christians even called him a Christian because his ideas were so similar to Christian beliefs.

You are just arguing from personal incredulity - all you've said is you find my ideas hard to believe ;-)

Why did Christians think Philo was a Christian?


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

For the reasons I gave, the reasons you quoted.

Philo wrote a lot - about Jewish sects, beliefs, leaders, and events.

He was there, at the time, writing relevant books.


K.

Kapyong

Well, I don't 'know' that - I argue it is the best explanation for the evidence.

G.Mark started it all, and it is clearly based largely on the Tanakh - many episodes can be seen in the prior Jewish writings. And G.Mark uses names found in Paul's writings.

And it's full of supernatural events and amazing feats - so I think it was not written as history at all.

But the Gospels didn't become widely known until early-mid century as Earl has been pointing out. The dating of c.70CE doesn't match the Christian record which shows the Gospel writings were not known before about 130CE - the epistles, Hebrews, Barnabas, Ignatius etc. all talk about Jesus in terms lifted from the Tanakh. Time after time, these early writers lift details about Jesus from the scriptures.

Not till about mid 2nd century do the Gospels become widely quoted and referenced - starting with Justin Martyr.


K.