Originally Posted by J-D

There is a problem in supposing the singularity of the author. What is the basis for that supposition? What makes you think that some one wrote the letters, rather than some two, some three, or some fifty? And if there was more than one, which of them invented Christianity?And even if there was only one person who wrote 'the letters' (which letters do you include in that, anyway?), you still haven't answered the question: what makes it appear to you that that person invented Christianity?Sheshbazzar's assertion, which I was responding to, is that it appears that Saul of Tarsus invented Christianity. Do you agree with that? If not, who do you think did invent Christianity?

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I believe that the "Jesus" legends developed out of the combination of strong Jewish Messianic expectations becoming alloyed with the "logos" concepts of philosophy, and with a variety of contemporary dying-resurrecting god saviour legends.

My theory is that Saul of Tarsus did actually exist and did travel from synagogue to synagogue in the Diaspora preaching a "messianic message" and the same "Watchword" that was employed during the Maccabeean conflict.
Those Jews among the Diaspora who were highly Hellenized, and the Gentiles associated with them, were quick to make the leap that the "Watchword" being taught was the actual name of the long awaited Jewish messiah. This provided a figurehead to which the "rumor mill" was finally able to attach hundreds of popular "midrash" stories, sayings and miracle legends.

It is my opinion that the real Saul (or Paul) of Tarsus actually wrote very little of the NT writings that Christianity latter attributed to the Apostle Paul.
Rather that on account of him being a well known Messianic teacher, his respected name became the "christian" pen-name of choice, with dozens of pious writers and sectarian factions fabricating, modifying, and correcting those theological "epistles" being written in his name.
The thought process is still present today, "Well, this is what Paul WOULD HAVE written......", or "This is WHAT Paul "MEANT" when he wrote....."

The Constantinian reformers finally selectively edited the entire collection into a somewhat stable "orthodox" cannon, banning any texts considered to be unorthodox.

The "Watchword" represented the Hope of Israel, Hope over Despair, Victory snatched from the jaws of certain Defeat, Life over death, The Desire of Ages, little wonder that it so easily became personified as a cult figure.

Was there a real Jesus? This is like asking if there is a real Uncle Sam, or a real Lady Liberty.
But of course the Nation of Israel has never officially embraced that amalgamated icon, although now days it has become very cognizant of the great financial opportunities that are present in the "finding" of archaeological "evidence" for Jesus.
A "Santa" delivering gifts of shekels every day is one that is hard to resist.

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have no interest in dealing with people's imagination, I deal with the information in the NT, the early Church fathers and non-apologetic sources.

Once again, I have claimed that there is no evidence or information from non-apologetic sources about Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century except for forgeries. And that his birth, temptation by the devil, the miracles, the transfiguration, resurrection and ascension appear to be fiction, and further that his trial by Pilate appear to be unrealistic, since Pilate found "no fault in him", yet still allowed him to be crucified.

Even, after his so-called burial, the the authors of the NT claimed those who came to visit the body never saw it again, but later he appeared unto his disciples unharmed and in perfect health. This story appears to me to be outrageous or just plain fiction.

You need to read my post carefully. I do not deal with imagination, I deal with the texts as it is presented.

Originally Posted by eheffa

The reason that one might drift towards either extreme in a dichotomous fashion is because the Gospel accounts don't make room for a nice middle ground compromise.

Originally Posted by eheffa

The Gospels describe a famous wonder worker, who makes extraordinary claims about himself. He attracts large crowds & his fame spreads throughout the land of Palestine & Jerusalem. He's so famous that even the High Priests and the Romans e.g. Pilate's wife know all about him. He attracts controversy and causes a great stir in the land. He performed miracles that became famous and raises the dead to life who wander the streets of Jerusalem. He is executed and there is an earthquake of huge proportions, the sun goes black and a great fear seizes the city of Jerusalem. He rises from the dead & is seen by more than 500 witnesses. He ascends to heaven in broad daylight in view of many others. His followers who are left behind are imbued with great oratorical power & the christian movement grows in leaps & bounds provoking a backlash of persecution by both the Jewish establishment and the Roman authorities.

We know all this from the (inerrant) Gospel accounts and the Book of Acts.

We go looking for the corroborative documentation from Jewish opponents, the historians & observers of the day, expecting that this controversial figure of history, (Jesus the Christ) would have provoked a wide spectrum of responses to his bold, outrageous words and deeds. We look expectantly and what do we find?

NOTHING... a big fat ZERO :huh:

This is not just an argument from silence - this is deafening silence. There is nothing here. NO controversy, no argument, NOTHING.

Did the Gospel writers faithfully record history but no-one else noticed? Did they engage in a little exaggeration when maybe their Jesus was a little more
ordinary? To even do half of what is claimed about him & still maintain the essentials of the Gospel story ( Healing, Preaching, Crucifixion, Resurrection) one would expect he would have been noticed by someone literate & able to write but what do we find....nothing.

If the Gospel writers were writing about a real person of History who was otherwise so ordinary and unremarkable in his preaching or deeds that he didn't warrant any notice, then he was not the Jesus of the Gospels & is therefore irrelevant for us & anyone else. If so then he was a real historical person but very ordinary. Just another one of those First Century Jesus guys...

This is a very significant silence and to me represents a very good reason to regard the gospels as fabrications. Who cares whether there was a "real historical Jesus" if all he was was just another apocalyptic schizophrenic messianic wannabe?

What is the simplest explanation for this significant silence?

- Jesus of Nazareth is a fictitious mythical character.
(Kind of disappointing eh?)

-evan

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Sometimes "life" gets in the way of providing an immediate reply to every argument or objection that pops up in the course of a thread, and most Forum participants can recognise that the all details of other posters ideas are not always made fully evident in every single post that is made.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I'm back J-D, and to clarify my position regarding that "assertion" with which you have taken issue, I am offering intact a post that I made in another thread today, and which also deals with the matter with which you are concerned.
You may note that I wrote "I believe......", "It is my theory......" and "It is my opinion......" yours may differ.

Originally Posted by J-D

If you are 'dealing' with the text on the basis of the assumption that it must be either all true or all false, then your position is a methodologically bankrupt one. There is no justification for such an assumption about this text or any other.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your assumption about me is erroneous. You do not deal with the issues but just make strange allegations. It should be obvious that I can also claim your assumption of me is bankrupt, but I would prefer if you could really make your position clear about Jesus and produce a credible non-apologetic source to support you.

I say the history of Jesus is bankrupt based on the information that I have seen from Eusebius, Philo and Josephus.

What do say about Jesus?

Originally Posted by J-D

Some people believe the following to be true: that about the fourth decade of the first century, a man called Jesus preached a messianic message of some variety to the Jews of Palestine; that some accepted him as their leader; that they continued to acknowledge his leadership and preach his message after his execution, and gathered more followers; and that from this group progressively evolved (with doctrinal differences developing over time) the various groups subsequently identified as Christian.

I see nothing to make this account impossible.

Originally Posted by J-D

Everything I post is my opinion and what I believe (what else could it be?), so I very seldom feel the need to say so explicitly, and I take what other people post on the same principle.

On the other hand, I normally have reasons for holding my opinions and my theories, and if I post them here I accept that people may ask for those reasons. And that's what I want to ask you. Why do you hold the view you do? What makes you think that Saul of Tarsus actually existed, and that the things you say about him are true? Do you have reasons for preferring your theory to others? I'm curious.

Originally Posted by aa5874

The guy called Jesus in the NT had thousands of followers, was believed to be the son of the God of the Jews and was known among all men, throughout the region and even far away from Judaea. That is the guy that cannot be found in the history books of the 1st century, not even in the history of the Church as written by Eusebius.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

With regard to the character depicted in the Gospels, a fairly strong argument from silence can be made.

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no rural unknown preacher in the NT named Jesus, whether or not you believed he did miracles or was the son of the God of the Jews.

Originally Posted by J-D

Some people believe the following to be true: that about the fourth decade of the first century, a man called Jesus preached a messianic message of some variety to the Jews of Palestine; that some accepted him as their leader; that they continued to acknowledge his leadership and preach his message after his execution, and gathered more followers; and that from this group progressively evolved (with doctrinal differences developing over time) the various groups subsequently identified as Christian.

Originally Posted by J-D

I see nothing to make this account impossible. In this respect, it differs both from the account of Christ given in the Gospels and from the account of Christ given in the epistles, both of which contain many elements which could not possibly be true.

Originally Posted by J-D

If you reject this account, or prefer a different account, I would like to know why.