outhouse

the romans put him on a cross, jews were not responsible for his death

aa5874

Tell us what you imagined happen. You don't need to see what is written ONLY what you imagine is historically accurate.

It is the Story that counts NOT what you imagine should have happened.

Matthew 27 In gMatthew, Pilate claimed he was INNOCENT of the blood of the JUST Jesus and the Jews accepted responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus.

It is the STORIES that count whether or NOT you think they are fiction. You cannot ALTER them. The stories are EVIDENCE.

thief of fire

Imagine, for example, if Doherty, denied the authenticity of the Pauline epistles. Where would that leave him?
I suggest it would be a disaster for him. His theory barely hangs together as it is by a whole string of questionable suppositions and improbablities, without an authentic Paul it fully disintegrates. It becomes a shambles. After all Doherty insists that Paul was a mythicist, maybe the original mythicist.
He then should have to come up with some explanation of who paul was then , if Paul was, inventing his interactions with others (as the OP suggests).
Doherty's theory would become even wierder as doherty's ideas about sacrifices in the upper realm have their origin with Paul, not in pagan stories. At least that is what is attested to here.

Quote:

I get the idea that you have interpreted me as though I were saying: the pagans placed the myths of their savior gods in the upper world, therefore we have good reason to interpret Paul that way. Actually, my movement was in the opposite direction. I have always worked first with the early Christian record, and come to a heavenly-realm understanding of it through internal evidence (supported by the unworkability of an earthly understanding of that record)"

spin

:hysterical:

What a delusional statement. It's true that Galatians seems to be the last hope for Jesus historicists--you know, after all the other subterfuge fails--, but that's based on one verse, 1:19, which is tendentiously understood.

In the above comment you are merely showing your own taudry biases and projecting your own fantasies onto others.

It is normal in most fields for basics to be questioned. Grow up and accept that without such sad imputations. I personally think the o.p. is wrong, but your comment is only self-stimulation.

aa5874

Late Pauline writings do NOT help an historical Jesus. Galatians 1.19 will be completely useless if Galatians was written in the mid 2nd-3rd century and that is PRECISELY where it has been dated by Paleography.

2nd-3rd century Galatians 1.19 is TOTALLY irrelevant to an historical Jesus.

There really is NO evidence for an historical Jesus so HJers just spend their time trying to refute people who do NOT supporrt HJ.

Duvduv

I am always suspicious of prepositional or parenthetical phrases such as 1:19. And of course in overall context it makes no sense.
Also the earlier autobiographical text starting in chapter one of which 1:19 is a part makes no sense in thw narrative.

thief of fire

Hmmm...you seem to want to make this personal. Instead of getting into personal exchanges with people you don't know on the internet, you could get a life...maybe? Unless that is your life?

spin

If you don't like what you get, try to be kinder when you give.

thief of fire

Have you got some specific complaint? Or are you just trying to justify yourself somehow for you personal comments?

Toto

I have a specific complaint, as a moderator here. You posted a sarcastic bit, implying that the only reason to question a certain Bible verse was that it was inconvenient.

This is a personal attack on the motives of other posters. It is not a good way of winning friends or influencing people here.

Please mend your ways.