Logical

Some of the most intriguing points Mythicists bring up are things not mentioned in the letters of the NT, especially when the author seems to be paraphrasing something Jesus said in the gospels, or discussing an issue that Jesus addressed, without quoting Jesus to support his stance or attributing the quote to Jesus where appropriate.

That seems like an insurmountable barrier for Historicists at first, until a very simple explanation comes to mind: Jesus never said those things or addressed those issues.

The sequence of events is easy to reconstruct. Paul is faced with issue "X" or a challenge by "heretics", or a question posed by the faithful. That issue is resolved by the church fathers, or Paul himself. Let's call the resolution "R". Many decades later, the gospel writers are hard at work inventing stories and quotes attributed to Jesus, as the First Century historical man is being made a god. Guess what, issue "X" is now part of the established community, and they want to preserve resolution "R" and cement it in the gospels. We have many examples of early church history where authors attribute their own views to historical authorities such as Socrates. Anyway, the author inserts issue "X" into Jesus' environment and has Jesus address it with resolution "R", the official approved resolution of the church.

Two thousand years later we have Doherty reading Paul and creating a list for us where Paul could have quoted Jesus, and didn't, claiming that Paul must have not thought Jesus existed.

Toto

Your historical Jesus is unfalsifiable. He led a movement but failed to say anything of interest or resolve any issues, and his later followers had to invent his life and sayings. What good is he?

But there is one "silence" you can't avoid. Was Jesus married? How could Paul not have mentioned whether Jesus was married when he discussed marriage?

outhouse

because paul didnt know jesus at all. didnt live where he did and didnt worship the same sect of judaism.


that and paul was a loner in what today amounts to a convict, paul wasnt a family man and it reflects his exact theology.


something you wouldnt understand, since its slipped you this far [facepalm]

Kapyong

Gday,

That's not quite right.

It's not that Paul did not think Jesus existed at all.

It's that Paul thought Jesus was a spiritual being, who existed in the heavenly planes, but not as a physical historical being.

Doherty's argument is that Jesus was a heavenly being, who Paul though DID exist, and descended from the highest heaven, down to a plane, sphere, or region beneath the moon, but not earth.


K.

aa5874

The problem with your post is that you ASSUME the veracity of the Pauline writings. Assumptions are NOT acceptable to establish history of the Jesus character.

It is IMPERATIVE that the sources used for the history of the Jesus character be corroborated.

You MUST have realized that the time when the Pauline writings were composed is of UTMOST importance in order to come to a resolution.

It makes NO logical sense to PRESUME the veracity of the Pauline writings to prove Jesus existed.

Presumptions are worthless as evidence.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Good point. It also seems absurd that the early leaders of the Jerusalem Church, according to Paul, were still practicing forced circumcision of new converts. Only the most extreme and fanatical Jews practiced this according to Josephus. If Jesus had endorsed this practice, who was Paul to oppose it? Could an historical Jesus have had no opinion on the practice? It is fantastically unlikely that an historical leader of any group would not be for or against this practice. If this were the case, then shouldn't have Paul argued that Jesus never gave an opinion on the practice?

Paul is just uninterested in Jesus' opinion on this important issue, and others like it, because he knows that Jesus had no opinion. As far as I can see, Jesus, is not a human, but just another name for Yahweh for Paul.

However, I support Logical's general idea that all the sayings of Jesus from the New Testament were developed from ideas mentioned by Paul and other Judeo-Christian writers of the time.

The HJers are getting desperate. First they take away Jesus' miracle's and resurrection. Then they propose Q which shows the whole trial and death was unnecessary, as Jesus only had a lot of great sayings that people remembered. Now with Logical's "Mime Jesus" hypothesis, they even take away his words. Put it all together and we have an historical Jesus without magic, the passion story or words. This leaves us an with an historical Jesus who did nothing. This does not significantly differ from the Mythological or Fictional Jesus hypothesis.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Diogenes the Cynic

I would say that he didn't have to have been any good to have existed. This gets at the question of how to define "Jesus," I guess.

aa5874

It is not logical to support an idea WITHOUT first establishing the veracity of the Pauline writings. History is DIRECTLY dependent upon credibility.

And further, even in the Pauline writings, it is claimed that Paul got information from WRITTEN sources that Jesus died for OUR Sins, was buried, and resurrected on the Third day.

Those ideas are Pre-Pauline in the letters themselves--- Paul claimed he was LAST visited by the resurrected Jesus AFTER OVER 500 people.

Over 500 people HAD IDEAS about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus BEFORE Paul in the Pauline letter.

Paul claimed he was LAST--Apologetic Sources claimed Paul was NOT first-- Paul claimed he was a Persecutor of the FAITH.

There is just NO source, credible or Not, that places the Pauline writer first or that he wrote letters before c 70 CE.

Toto

I'm having trouble parsing this. Loner? Convict?


You and others seem to have misunderstood my question "What good is he?"

I meant to ask what good is the hypothetical historical Jesus as an explanation of historical events, such as the origins of Christianity, if his followers had to invent all the facts of his life and his sayings.

Diogenes the Cynic

The original movement didn't invent that stuff, it was invented by secondary and tertiary movements with no connection or access to the original Jerusalem group. We don't know what the original movement thought.