Solo

There is are overweening elements of spontaniety, compulsion, and involuntary dissociation in Paul's revelatory experiences, which he internally grasped as originating with an external source. Having gone through something analogous, I feel assured that Crossan is correct in estimating that Paul as 'prisoner of Christ' was meant as 'Christ's prisoner'.

So I would say, no, Paul did not make it up, he perceived it as something being made up by God in him.

Jiri

aa5874

The MYTH, Jesus of the NT, came to believed just like Marcion's MYTH was believed to be history WITHOUT an actual man.

Marcion's myth called Jesus, the phantom, was claimed to be on earth during the time of Tiberius and he had many followers who believed the phantom was history.

Marcion may have done some research on Jesus of the NT, and found out that there were no records of a man called Jesus that lived in Judaea. Marcion was a sailor, or was an owner of ships, he may have travelled to Judaea and found out that no Jew could account for a human Jesus.

This is Justin Martyr on Marcion, the man who proved without doubt that people can believe in a Jesus that was only a God and was not human at all.

"First Apology" 58 Marcion and his followers thought the human Jesus was a big joke.

Macion's Jesus was believed to be history and Marcion's Jesus was not sacrificied. Marcion's Jesus did not have to commit suicide or appear suicidal and was very convincing to his followers.

Marcion showed without doubt that the suicidal man theory is really a big joke.

Elijah

Comparing the story of Jesus to Marcion makes no sense. One because you have so little information about him and two you probably wouldn’t understand the philosophy if there were actual texts remaining of his. You can name drop everyone who has ever been mentioned on this board but at the end of the day you still need to come up with a myth theory if you want to call yourself a believer in it.

Elijah

A coherent theory; if you want to say that what you believe isn’t full of holes, which is the discussion we are having.
Yea but you don’t know what the revelation was or if the man he had the revelation about was preexistent.
And why do you speculate this? What is your reasoning? Do you know who the author of Mark is historically or are you just repeating Church tradition.
So you have no speculation or reason to believe that he was writing fiction?
That’s a theory. Don’t know how well you could demonstrate it or what it really does for you explaining your personal myth theory.
“Simple” would be one way to describe your view, yes. I can’t contradict anything of your theory because you haven’t presented anything to contradict. Your theory is a couple of names; you don’t know the history behind or the relation between. Giant holes. You can’t say anything about how Christ came about with any clarity at all.

So far the myth theory just looks like wishful thinking, it doesn’t exist at all. Even when it finally gets put together in a coherent way, it’s still going to be highly improbable, but right now no one can even put together a decent theory.

aa5874

Nothing makes sense to you except your suicidal man about whom you have no information.

Where are the texts from antiquity of your suicidal man? You have none.

Marcion proved that it was not necessary for Jesus to have been a real human. Marcion proved that Jesus did not need a mother named Mary, did not need to be crucified, did not need to commit suicide or did not need to be resurrected to be worshipped as a God.

I have Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

You have a theory about a suicidal man that is just a joke, based on nothing but your imagination.

Elijah

That's the only rational understanding of the origin of Christ that has been presented.

Don't play dumb, people will think you aren't playing.

You have no texts of Marcion, you have fragmented speculation of him from secondary sources you don't understand. You have no ability to reconstruct what Marcion thought and if you did it wouldn't help you a bit in trying to explain the origin of the Christ myth, unless you think Marcion is the original writer of the Christ story. Is Marcion the writer of the story of Christ?

You have some quotes from them taken out of context that don't do anything to help establish a coherent mythical origin theory.

I think not having a theory at all is the joke. You can't even imagine a way it is possible for what you to believe to have happen. Because what you believe is what you want to believe regardless of the lack or reasoning behind it.

aa5874

You have not presented any evidence at all for your suicidal man. You have not made any reference to a single text of antiquity. You have neither first, second, third hand information on your suicidal man. Just your imagination.


You have no texts of your suicidal Jesus. You have no sources but your imagination.

I have Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

I did not re-construct what Marcion thought, I simply showed what is found in First Apology by Justin Martyr.

Explain who is the original writer of the suicidal Jesus, you have the texts, don't you?

And do you have texts from Christ, or are you using secondary sources? Do you think your suicidal Jesus is the original writer of the Christ story?


Justin Marytr was presented Jesus as a God/man, born without sexual union, with the power and authority to forgive sins who did many miracles who was resurrected and ascended to heaven, yet was laughed at by the Marcionites, it would have ben suicidal madness and an even bigger joke if he was presented as a blasphemer who committed suicide whose body was never recovered, perhaps eaten by dogs or scavenger birds.

Elijah

It’s the story in the gospels and I’ve already posted a quote illustrating the point. If you haven’t read any of the gospels past the first chapter you may have missed that. What reason do you have to believe in a mythical origin and how do you think it was confused for history?
And what do you think you can reconstruct about what Marcion thought from that passage? Was it Marcion was simply Aristotelian about his understanding of the universe while Justin was more platonic, or do you have something more?
Suicidal Jesus doesn’t need a writer he’s historical.
You know the texts I’m using. I encourage you to look up the history surrounding them.
You are still failing to present any evidence from either Marcion or Justin the Martyr that would support your (as yet to be seen) mythical theory of how Jesus came to be and thought of as historical.

Once again the mythical myth theory fails to materialize. Just an urban legend meant to scare little Christians.

aa5874

You have no texts from the suicidal man. When did your suicidal man write the Synoptics or the Gospel of John?

And further, the texts that you quoted from are about a God, born of a virgin, without sexual union, offspring of the Holy Ghost, who transfigured, was resurrected after the third day, and ascended through the clouds as witnessed by the disciples.

The Gospels clearly describe a mythical creature.

The authors of gMatthew, gMark, Gluke and gJohn all wrote that their Jesus had risen from the dead.

It is laughable to claim that a man committed suicide in the Gospels when the very same authors said he rose himself from the dead, and came back to life and was eating fish and bread.

How could a creature be crucified, was buried, and then three days later be alive, with all his wounds already healed, and in perfect health, except the creature was a myth.



You have four versions of the myth according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I do not have to make any stuff up. I told you to read Matthew 1.18 to see how the myth was born, and Acts 1.9 to see how the myth exited the earth.

I need no theory, the myth is right there in the NT that you quoted from.

This is Origen in "De principiis" on Jesus, Behold the myth according to Origen.

Elijah

What texts should I expect from him? How do you even know if he was capable of writing anything readable?
Or the tales surrounding a messiah claimant. Your job is to show that it is more probable that the story is being made up from scratch and not the writing down of the stories by overzealous followers of a preexistent religious leader. Instead of the tall tales of a religious figure the actual inspiration of the religion altogether.
So does this prove they were writing fiction or the tales being told of the man at the time? How does them saying that disprove Jesus anymore then people still saying Elvis is alive?
It’s laughable to use the story of an impossible resurrection to argue against a possible martyrdom. Do you believe that it is possible that he really came back from the dead? So how could it be used as an argument against martyrdom?
He can’t, but his followers can have visions of him or make up stories that they’ve seen him alive because they can’t handle his death. All of which is way way way more likely than your impossible to present myth theory.
But no indication if the source of the myth is a real man or an author of a story.
But the myth "right there" doesn’t tell us where it came from. You need to present the case that it came from a writer and not the exaggerations of a dead guy’s followers. If you can’t present a case then you probably don’t actually believe in a mythical origin to Jesus, you just don’t believe in how he is presented in the gospels.
What Origen believes about the story surrounding Jesus may be theologically significant but has little to do with demonstrating the origin of the Jesus story. Unless you think Origen wrote the origin of Jesus?