tanya

Ganz im gegenteil. Not only we DON'T know anything about the genuine intentions of the anonymous authors of the gospels, but further, we DO know of a couple thousand years of wars, violence, killings, and injustice, BASED on the notion that the gospels represented HISTORICAL, rather than ahistorical, documents.

I commented earlier in this thread, on this topic, a reply which you ignored, so will not elaborate again, but, in summary: Alexander, as you acknowledge, was a genuine biological person, about whom various legends arose. Those accounts claiming mythical attribution, do not provide the basis for a claim of his human existence. We possess evidence, apart from such exaggerated narratives, in many languages, of his reality. We have no such simple descriptive data, for a biological Jesus.

Each, and every document, associated with Jesus, describing his biological existence, ALSO insists on Jesus' display of supernatural traits. There exists no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, which explains Jesus, absent reference to his being a deity.

Repeating myself, from the earlier post, if you have such a reference, please describe it.
:huh:

Toto

It looks to me and many others as if Mark has no connection to actual history - it starts with Jesus coming out of nowhere, meeting the holy spirit, going off on a 40 day visit to the wilderness and meeting Satan, continues with some impossible and improbable events, ending with a resurrection from the dead. It lists no sources, no "it is said" or "according to" or "I, Mark, witnessed this."

But you claim this is supposed to be history? What would it take to convince you?

There are conspiracy theorists who think that the Jesus character was a deliberate fraud, a fictional creation passed off as real. I don't go in for conspiracy theories because I recognize that the process doesn't need to be deliberate. "[U]nder certain circumstances people generally react in certain ways" - yes, people can easily assume that a historical person lies behind a story that they like.

What was Paul's name? His allegedly authentic letters (and inauthentic ones) never refer to any name other than Paul.

You claimed "Yet not only does Paul make clear who he was..." but he doesn't. "Paul" could be a nickname, a pen name. He doesn't give his father's name or his location or any identifying characteristics.

"Saul" appears in Acts of the Apostles, a fictional work from the second century that contradicts the letters at various key points. The claim that he was a Roman citizen is just a claim - perhaps part of his boasting. The lack of any real information has allowed the speculation to flourish that Paul was really Simon Magus. :huh:

aa5874

Toto why are you still clinging to "allegedly authentic letters" WITHOUT a shred of hard evidence while Ridiculing others who think gMark is AUTHENTIC history??

Toto, you INCAPABLE of making any argument against an historical Jesus when you are also accepting Acts of the Apostles as an AUTHENTIC historical account of Paul as a 1st century figure of history.

Please, please, please, you are INEFFECTIVE because you argue for an historical Paul using the same absurd logical FALLACIES as those who argue for an Historical Jesus---The Bible NAMES Jesus and Paul therefore they did or was likely to exist .

Please, Toto, cut the BS. The Bible NAMES Gabriel as an Angel.

There is NO hard evidence for Paul and Jesus and writings to place them in the 1st century have been deduced to be forgeries. See the Seneca letters and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

The very same thing happened in antiquity, the very people who BELIEVED in Greek/Roman Mythology were INEFFECTIVE against those who claimed THEIR Jesus was God.

Toto, Acts is ADMITTED fiction so why are you using it to put forward the absurd notion that Paul was Simon Magus when the Pauline writer did NOT state he was GOD???

Simon Magus considered himself the first GOD and was worshiped by the Smaritans as a God according to Justin--See First Apology

The Pauline writings are 2nd century or later Anti-Marcionite Texts where the author claimed he was a WITNESS to the resurrected Jesus.

outhouse

when a mortal man is followed by a movement in a religion, if he is popular enough, he is deified and mythology will be created surrounding him.

even if he is popular and in control he can be deified [emporers]



the only thing that made jesus differnet is that the movement grew into a national religion.


the only reason the jesus movement took off was the roman god-fearers not wanting to commit to judaism, but wanting to worship its main deity. a new movement keeping their winky's away from a dull butter knife is all it took. they just happened to describe it and its main man, mythically.

outhouse

not by anyone with credibility


due to the contradicting legends written about each.


while acts may have differences over paul, the end result is the same for each legend.

two different authors with different views telling roughly the same parts of legends is exactly what we see

Toto

Do you know what allegedly means ??? It means here that other people call those letters authentic, but I do not necessarily agree.

I just called Acts a fictional work. :huh: :facepalm:

What exactly leads you to believe that I am arguing for a historical Paul??

How may inaccuracies and non sequiturs can you pack into one sentence?

:constern01::constern02::Cheeky:

Perhaps someone in your world wide audience can help you

aa5874

I called the Pauline writings sources of fiction written in the 2nd century or later based on the Hard Evidence.

Tell us what you are arguing for???

My argument is that the Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite Texts written in the 2nd century or later based on the Hard Evidence.

mountainman

Are you are aware of the monumental evidence?

mountainman

In Acts of Peter and Paul is a version of the Peter vs Simon Magus miracle contest, this time with Paul present, and enacted in front of the Roman Emperor Nero.

How does the speculation that Paul was really Simon Magus handle this source?

Toto

The same way all such sources are handled. It is too late and too bizarre to be taken literally, but full of possibilities for creative reading between the lines.

The identification of Paul with Simon Magus is widespread, if speculative. e.g., see Meade, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten

or this blog.