rlogan

We are really getting somewhere here Amaleq13 and I appreciate it very much. That answered some important questions.

I want to zero in on some things now. We are in agreement about a proselytizing effort in Christianity.

So first, what is the gospel of Jesus Christ that you are referring to with Paul? I mean to please write that gospel out for me. Shouldn't take but a few sentences.

This gospel is pre-70, going back to maybe as early as 50 CE. It is well within the living generation of the historical Jesus whom it is based upon. (He is mythicized, but there is still a Jesus it is based upon)

The next question regards the crucifixion. I take it you accept it happened. So if you could please explain why it happened.

I need some idea about the extent of this HJ's following and what happened to those followers within their lifetimes - whether they just died off or whether they continued on with the direct message of Jesus himself.

And finally, what was the message or gospel of the Historical Jesus as distinct (if it is) from Paul's?

Thanks. This is proving to be very fruitful.

Amaleq13

Proselytizing for the core belief in a risen Christ and all that entailed but not necessarily the story contained in the Gospels or the contents of Paul's letters.

Anyone with faith in Christ crucified and raised obtains all the rewards/promises for the faithful given in Hebrew Scripture. He found his audience among gentile god-fearers.

It is fundamentally essential to Paul's good news but he gives no reason for it. Perhaps the apparently fundamentally evil nature of the "archons" is all the reason he needed?

They continued to preach about their venerated former leader to their fellow Jews but with limited success. I think the Ebionites are the last vestiges.

I think it was the more or less standard call to their fellow Jews to bring their faith and actions into alignment with what God wanted, according to Scripture.

rlogan

Hmmmm. Thank you for those answers.

I guess only one more really - how do you see Paul as coming to know of his Christ? He of course states that he came to know of him through a vision.

Do you disagree with how Paul says he came to know him? If so, what was that source of information Paul used?

spamandham

In addition to the vision, Paul suggests he learned what he knew through revelation via the scriptures. It is generally assumed that Paul learned about Jesus from others, but Paul never says anything like that. Instead, he states he did not receive his gospel from others.

Personally, I don't put much stock in all this, because there is evidence of heavy alteration (if not outright fraud) in regard to the epistles. And though we can spot inconsistencies and so we know there was fraudulent, that doesn't mean that what's left was actually written by Paul. It's quite possible that nothing we have was written by a first century Paul character.

Amaleq13

From those he tells us he persecuted prior to his "conversion".

No, he doesn't. He says the gospel he preached was revealed to him by the risen Christ.

No, I take into account both claims Paul makes about the origin of his knowledge.

rlogan

Alright, Amaleq13 I am hoping to get more than a one-liner out of this - could you please give me some details, in the form of a description where a person who is ireally trying to understand this version of the historical Jesus - how it is that Paul is learning about Jesus and forming his opinions.


Now we have some people Paul was persecuting. OK - who are these people and who is Paul that he would be doing so? These are the followers of the original Jesus that Paul is persecuting? Because we only have two groups in your model so far - the direct followers of Jesus, who die out, and Paul - who I am really struggling with for more detail here.

Or is there a third group now? This would push Paul's persecution phase into the immediate aftermath of the alleged crucifixtion.

In your version then is Paul in the same city as the original followers of Jesus, and persecuting them (please explain) and then in this same city establishes a new version of Christ?

I can't make it up - because I am trying to see how you view this. Not interested in arguing.

It would be easier to just write down a description of this evolution, and I don't think it would take that long.

Example: Paul is Jewish official of some kind in Jerusalem, working for the Temple priesthood ferreting out followers of this break-away Jewish cult lead by a troublemaker named Jesus the authorities executed. He comes to sympathize with their position and moreover has visions that give him ideas about a risen Christ, etc etc.

I think really the answer is you haven't thought out such level of detail, right?

Amaleq13

I'm trying to confine my answers to what the evidence can be reasonably argued to support. That will necessarily limit the amount of detail. I guess I'm used to spin's disdain for speculation.

Look back at the "chart". They would be the people preaching the Mythologized man. God's Wisdom Incarnate calling the Jews to repent their ways and return to proper fulfillment of God's will, etc. (see moral teachings in "Q").

Paul doesn't tell us under what authority these persecutions were conducted. He seems to assume his readers either already know or are willing to accept the claim.

More like followers of the followers since he tells us his interaction with the original followers was limited and delayed. Paul suggests the belief was at least somewhat successful in obtaining converts and spreading but he did his work outside Judea.

He indicates that he was not known by face to the groups in Judea so, no. He also doesn't establish his gospel in Jerusalem, either, so no to that one as well.

Longer than I'm interested in taking, I'm afraid. I've got plenty of shit to do around the ranch (literally), closing out the school year, and taking a couple online classes. Writing an essay for you isn't something I'm particularly interested in doing. Especially when I think what you've already been given is more than sufficient to establish my claim: The notion of an historical Jesus is not "preposterous". I'm happy to answer specific questions and ven provide speculative narrative if you want but I'm not filling out a blue book for you.

Yes, I would consider that a reasonable, albeit admittedly speculative, narrative. See, you can imagine the possible narrative that could fill in the plentiful gaps just as well as I. That it can be done in a way that is not preposterous is my point.

I think it has to start with Paul's obvious mental instability. Throw in persecution of folks who, despite perversely venerating a crucified criminal, appear to have honorable intentions and you provide fertile ground for the sort of revelation he describes. But even his guilt isn't strong enough to overcome his ego because Christ doesn't reveal to him that he should join the group he persecuted. He's given a better gospel.

And you were doing so well avoiding this sort of bullshit.

Don't confuse reluctance to summarize a class I finished over a year ago with never having taken it.

rlogan

Thanks Amaleq13 of course you are busy.

Well since I don't think it is reasonable to place Paul as a temple official in Jerusalem, I would respectfully disagree that I can fill in details of a reasonable story myself. But I am willing to try.

And since you are invoking spin here we both know he places Paul remote in time and place from the alleged events. Me too.

I thought you disagreed with Paul being located in Jerusalem too in an earler post. So we don't have a reasonable story with the degree of completeness I am looking for at all. We have Paul some place remote from Jerusalem, not a church official working in Jerusalem. So there is some other (reasonable) story.

If there were an author that had it, I would be happy to look into the author. Is there an author you like that has one?

For example, I do not agree with the entire Doherty approach, but as a starting point for discussing a version of mythicism I ascribe to, there is no better single source. I happily point that out to someone wishing to know some detail in my thinking about things - and do not have any frustration whatsoever if people want to inquire further. Obviously, I like what I see in the Dutch Radicals and cite specific works on Pauline material.

But for now I am interested in seeing if I can construct a reasonable historical jesus version. That was my expectation when I showed up here, actually - and I came to a different conclusion. But my mind is still open.


I think we would know from historical records what kinds of positions Paul would have had that would make him persecutor. I think it reasonable to have that in the narrative. Otherwise we are dealing with a literary device, not history.

I apologize for having annoyed you though. It was a sincere question about the level of detail. Maybe it should have been phrased a different way. It doesn't seem that you really have a preferred version - you allow that there might be a number of reasonable versions, and I can come up with them just as easily as you.

Amaleq13

And I forgot to include Aces play-off games!!

Sorry, I should have read more carefully. I don't think any of that is necessary or appropriate given the evidence. No need for "temple official" and definitely not "Jerusalem". For all we know, he was doing this persecuting all on his crazy own.

When there is insufficient evidence, you either have to speculate or admit that you just don't know. Both sides must offer necessarily speculative scenarios. Both sides must accept necessarily tentative dates for the relevant evidence. Neither side can pretend to have any sort of advantage.

Yep, sloppy reading on my part.

Not really. Paul doesn't really provide enough information to figure out the precise nature of his persecution efforts.

We might but I wouldn't necessarily call that a reasonable expectation. I suppose it would depend upon how official and widespread his actions were.

That seems to me like jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. We may be dealing with just a literary device or we may be dealing with an historical fact for which no supporting evidence has been discovered.

Yes. The rorschach nature of the evidence pretty much eliminates any other outcome in my view. One can present an entirely reasonable historical Jesus thesis just as one can present an entirely reasonable mythical Jesus thesis.

What is not credible IMO, given the state of the evidence, are the sorts of dogmatic and hyperbolic assertions of certainty that waste so much time here.

Toto

Discussion of Mark as a rough draft split off here