Roger Pearse

This is all most interesting, and new to me. Do you have access to any of these articles? I would be most interested to see what the inscription says (in Latin), and any details of the find. (I have good French). If you happen to have them in PDF form, I'd be grateful for a copy (to [email protected]).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jakejonesiv

JesusMysteries? Then you will know that the Ignatian epistles are late 2c and can be traced as even Marcionite in their core.

Jake Jones IV

Geetarmoore

This is such a tired argument.....

There is no good reason that Paul doesn't include SOME of the details of Jesus' life on earth. To say otherwise, is a stretch, and special pleading...

Millions of people go to church each Sunday, to 'hear' the preacher relate the stuff that Jesus said, even though he is very aware that most already know the details....

Amaleq13

What details do you think would have been relevant to Paul's gospel?

Geetarmoore

How about, instead of "born of a woman", "born of the woman Mary"?

How about when he contradicts what Jesus actually said, according to the Gospel accounts?

jakejonesiv

What gospel was preached by Jesus, rather than just about him?

The name of anyone who had a conversation with Jesus during his life.

The name of anyone who was an eyewitness to Jesus' alleged earthly career.

What miracles were attributed to Jesus?

Why was Jesus crucified, who did he anger?
Under whose authority was Jesus crucified? i.e. Pontius Pilate rather than unnamed archons.

A commonly encountered HJ position (there are others) is that that

1. Jesus really lived
2. Paul and his readers really knew all the details.
3. But none of the events of the life of Jesus could have any theological or explanatory benefit to Paul or any of his readers. :boohoo:

Jake Jones IV

Amaleq13

Why would the name of Jesus' mother be relevant to Paul's gospel?

Why assume that the Gospel accounts can be relied upon as accurate history?

Couldn't this be an example of a Gospel author putting words into the mouth of Jesus which happen to (or where deliberately intended to) conflict with Paul's teachings?

Amaleq13

If we rely on the Gospels, the "gospel" Jesus preached was primarily, if not exclusively, focused upon his fellow Jews. How would that be relevant to Paul's gospel which appears to have been primarily, if not exclusively, focused on gentiles?

Paul tells us his gospel was obtained from the risen Christ. Why should any such conversations or names be relevant?

There doesn't appear to be any reason to think any were, based on Paul.

I agree that it is annoying Paul does not explain this but it doesn't seem to be an issue that lends itself to one side or the other as far as mythicism is concerned. It is an annoying "silence" regardless of whether one is trying to identify an ahistorical figure in Paul's letters or trying to confirm Gospel claims about a historical figure.

Since we cannot determine whether or not Paul was assigning blame to them directly or indirectly (ie the ultimate cause behind their human pawns), I just don't see this issue as very helpful.

jakejonesiv

Hi Amaleq13,

Of course I agree with your conclusions! Perhaps I answered in the wrong context. Here is the context in which my remarks were meant:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13 Quote: Originally Posted by Geetarmoore Quote: Originally Posted by Gamera The alternative conclusion is that Christian communities had the details of the narrative of the historical Jesus, through oral tradition or early now lost gospels, and hence the early epistles of Paul, which were guidelines to Christian living for people who already accepted the faith not gospels themselves, didn't need to go into the narrative. Paul assumed that they had all the details. This is such a tired argument..... There is no good reason that Paul doesn't include SOME of the details of Jesus' life on earth. To say otherwise, is a stretch, and special pleading... What details do you think would have been relevant to Paul's gospel?

OK, I interpreted your question, "What details do you think would have been relevant to Paul's gospel?" to mean; If Jesus were historical and if Paul knew the details of his life, which details would he have related in the alleged epistles?

As you point out, "Paul" obvously didn't know of any historical Christ, but only a transcendental being. Jesus thus can't be seen as a historical person, but as a god, and the Gospels are revealed as accreted from common mythical elements and recast OT tales.

But the rational historicists (I am leaving aside for now the believers whose religous motivations determine the conclusion before the investigation is begun) still cling to an utterly unknown historical Jesus, the only thing to be known is that he was, for some unclear reason, posthumously attributed with all the syncretic features. The attempt to delete away all the supernatural elements leads to a Jesus without anything at all that justifies seeing him as the beginning of a new religion.

Indeed, the evolution of myth describes Christian origins quite rationally. But if we are forced into the HJ proposition of a one time event cause of Christianity, then that event is of psychotic origin, consequently Christianity would be nothing but a psychosis. Anything is possible, but I don't think so.

Jake Jones IV

BlessNot

There just isn't any. The biblical Jesus is nothing more than a mythological figure recreated from centuries past pagan godmen.