Elijah

It could be but I’ll go with the most likely scenario instead of trying to imagine a new type of mindset out there, especially since the concept at hand looks like such an obvious argument gimmick.
Yea but I don’t have the theory that he is trying to compare. You can compare Jesus to whomever you want but you are still going to have to present a theory that explains what you believed happened.
Again just poor example comparison to what is being suggested. You can go to the examples you have as your evidence for probability after you explain what you believed happened. I don’t need a partial example of what is being suggested but it laid out as to what they think happened. Someone thought the founder of the Ebionites name was Ebion is great but now tell me what you think happened with Jesus. Let’s see a myth theory that is complete and makes sense then we will move onto examples and evidence.

The only difference I see in his position from regular mythicism is that he thinks Paul is pushing a revelation and doesn’t want it termed a myth. Do you see something different about what he suggesting that I am missing?
I doubt he uses the word reason but still a good show. Choosing a side is what you have to do to have a civilized debate. If you don’t have enough information to choose a position then sit on the sidelines and watch what others have to say about it until you do. Jumping in a discussion and going there isn’t enough evidence to prove any of this is counterproductive to any conversation at all and doing it repeatedly is umm umm I don’t know how to phrase it anymore.
I’ll try to find another way of phrasing this type of behavior next time since stating it so bluntly is subject to moderator action.

aa5874

There is no need for any myth theory.

Tell me what theory was developped for Achilles to catergorise Achilles as a myth?

When creatures are presented in an implausible and legendary way and there can be found no history of that creature, then the creature can be reasonably considered a myth.

You do not need to have theories about Zeus, Apollo, Dionysius, or Unicorns to consider them myths, you simply read about them and then try to find if they are any historical references to them from any credible source, if not, then they can be reasonably be declared myths, just like Jesus of the NT.

Jesus of the NT was presented, like Achilles, in a mythical way, the offsprings of mythical creatures, there are no historical records of Achilles or Jesus anywhere known to man, then they are all myths.

You need history NOT theory to make a man out of a fairy.

Elijah

Well tell me the history behind how the story was created and was confused for a historical figure then.
The theory that Achilles was created in a poem by Homer. Which is only a theory because he could be based on a historical core.
The implausible legends can be considered a myth but the source of the myth cannot be assumed to be baseless or abstract without evidence.

But it’s not like you have any problem with Jesus having a historical core, do you?

spin

No gimmick. The only way to stop a drug habit is to take a person off the drug. You don't offer to give them a fix on something just as unknown regarding consequences as what they were on. You're high on this historical core drug. You are raving about probability as though you had some cause, but we know that it's just drug talk. The drug says you'll say anything not to give it up.

You have been presented with a functional theory which you seem inadequate to deal with.

You are still confused. Ebion is not the comparison that you see. Ebion is about how non-reality can be seen as reality. We are dealing with traditions and the acceptance of them which means the acceptance of their "realities". I'm not comparing the christians' Jesus with the ebionites' Ebion.

I am showing that non-real can be, through its absorption into a tradition, transformed into "reality" for those who accept the tradition.

This is a nail that you've driven through your own forehead. It is not my problem: it's one you make for yourself. It's drug talk. In the end you have to face the fact that you simply cannot justify yourself and you need to be able to point out faults in something else to make you feel more secure.

More drug talk. You simply cannot deal with the issue that Paul tells us that he didn't get his gospel from human beings, that his Jesus need not have been a real-world figure (like Ebion) for him to believe in his existence. The revelation would have been sufficient. You've shown no attempt to understand the position. Your insistence on mislabeling the hypothesis shows your total lack of perception of the issue.

I'm having difficulty with your apparent lack of perception on the revelation hypothesis and its consequences, so can you tell me if you understand the following things?

1. that Paul claims that his revelation is not derived from human beings.
2. that Paul believed Jesus was real without ever having seen him.
3. that a real Jesus is not necessary for Paul to have the preceding thoughts.
4. that the gospel materials were composed long after Paul.
5. that the gospels are tradition based cultural artefacts which show an evolution within each.
6. that such an evolution could have happened after the time of Paul without need of any real world Jesus to stimulate the development of the tradition (just as Ebion didn't need to be real to stimulate a development of his tradition)
7. that whether there was or was not a Jesus is irrelevant to this process.

Do you need more clarity on the issue? Please respond as to your perceptions regarding the process that I've described, so that I can know what more you need.

You are missing the relationship between a person and their myth. Paul doesn't see his Jesus as a myth, meaning that his Jesus isn't mythical. He sees Jesus as real, ie as having been in the real world.

Can you explain what you mean by "myth" (as you don't seem to be using the term in any technical sense)?

Should I try to find ways around saying that my interlocutor is showing the perceptive abilities of a hibernating vole in midwinter?


spin

Elijah

Oh yea I remember your drug addict thing. Lol
No I think the theory is inadequate.
Yes mistakes can be made. That doesn’t need to be proven or shown. What needs to be shown is how the figure Jesus was created and confused for history.
Sounds great now tell me what you think happened with Jesus?
Oh boy you’re really going to go into the drug thing again aren’t you? Maybe a new analogy is needed since this one didn’t take the last time you threw it around with me.

Yes, I need to compare/look for faults in the other alternate hypothesis to feel secure in my hypothesis,. If no alternate hypothesis is presented at all then I feel pretty comfortable.
I can deal with him having a revelation, it’s no big deal to me. It depends on what his revelation was on if Jesus needs to be real or not.
Sure, but what is his revelation?
Sure, since he was persecuting people who thought he was the messiah.
No idea how you are coming to this conclusion but maybe after you explain his revelation I will.
The gospels as we have them now were composed at later dates but the original materials could have started emerging in the first generation of followers.
An evolution within each?
What evolution are you talking about? Who is evolving it? From what into what? Why isn’t a real Jesus needed?
No idea what process you are proposing so I don’t know if him being real is relevant or not.
Oh I’m lost. I have no idea how you are getting from Paul has a revelation about Jesus so Jesus doesn’t need to be real or how you think it is an explanation for others confusing it for history.
What is Paul’s revelation? What does the makeup of his followers look like?
It doesn’t matter what you think Paul believed about the revelation. Made up is made up.
Not historically based. A myth theory would be any theory that tries to disprove the existence of Jesus. I don’t like the wording either but work with what you got.
You should try to take it more seriously.

spin

Stage 1.

Bald statement.

Already stated. The "realization" that the expected messiah had already come.

You are repeating your errors. You should not retroject your false ideas of history onto the past. History is your hang-up and irrelevant to the discussion. Paul perceived his messiah to have been real without ever having met him or heard about the specific figure from human sources.

Apply what I said.

Yes, when you start to show that your thinking is not the drug then I think the metaphor will not be necessary.

An unfounded hypothesis is just as good as any other. You've got at least three alternatives here on this forum. Your problem is that you cannot acknowledge them.

Options were already offered in this thread and in previous threads.

If you "can deal with him having a revelation", then the exact nature of that revelation isn't necessary to understand in order to understand the results that followed from the revelation.

Quote your source for your making this exact claim.

You are refractory. If Paul never knew the real Jesus and didn't get information about him from other people, what is your problem?

Yup.

Mark had its evolution. Matthew had its evolution based on literary and oral sources, as did Luke.

The evolution of a tradition regarding Paul's soteriological messiah that ended around the time the Arian dispute was "resolved".

The retellers of the tradition.

Each point leading up to this seventh point. Doh!

I'd say more "out of your depth".

I got the list of the logical progression I posted read before I posted it so that a non-interested party could see if the description of what may have happened was clear. It seems so far that the only person who cannot understand what I have described is you.

If Paul never met Jesus and did not receive any knowledge about Jesus from other people, he had no knowledge of a real world Jesus.

As I said, "whether there was or was not a Jesus is irrelevant" to Paul's religion. Understand this:There was no historical core to Paul's religion. He didn't get anything about Jesus from the real world.

The direct source of his knowledge of Jesus. It is irrelevant which of the possibilities I've given describes the nature of his revelation.

Sorry, this question doesn't make sense to me.

I see that the notion of intention means little to you. In fact much of the analysis of the subjects you are trying to deal with means very little to you.

What do you mean by "history"? (This is one of your more abused words.)

I haven't tried to disprove the existence of Jesus -- simply the irrlevance of his existence to Paul's religion.

Learn what myth is.

It's proving a little too hard to take you seriously.


spin

Elijah

Then if he came how is he not historical?
How do you know he hadn’t heard about him? How do you know the revelation simply wasn’t concerning the person being the messiah? Why conjure this entity into existence?
I’ll just take that as you don’t know what happened with Jesus.
Time for an upgrade on your rhetoric or at least change the track to something more understandable.
I’ve got historical and not historical. Unless you want to include the I don’t know agnostics.
Well, if you are suggesting that the messiah had came and went then the messiah had to be real. Or he wouldn’t have came and went, he wouldn’t have ever been at all.
Acts and Galatians. You know where the story comes from, why pretend?

Quote your source for claiming that Paul was the first Christian and none existed before him.
What Paul’s revelation is determines if the person he was having a revelation about was real at some point or not.
So in your theory the synoptics are developed separately and no Markan priority stuff? What was proto Mark about and what were the differences between it and the other proto gospels?
Yea let’s talk about that evolution some. Don’t skip on the details.
Who? Anyone we would know?
Still no idea what you are proposing happened.
Could be.

You haven’t demonstrated the revelation was about a new entity that he was inventing and not just a revelation about an already existing person. Like I don’t know anything about you but I know you exist. If I have a vision that you are somebody of some importance that doesn’t mean you don’t or couldn’t exist.
I don’t see how it could be irrelevant but I don’t know what you think Paul’s beliefs were. How do you know he didn’t get anything about Jesus from the real world and that he wasn’t speaking of a specific revelation about someone?
You’ve gone with Jesus came and went as his revelation right? And no reason for him to think that happened with a real person?
What are his follower’s stats? Religion, locations, size education… whatever you got on em.
Intent matters to me but I don’t know what you are trying to say about it.
I mean having existed in reality. That really needs to be explained?
Better luck next time with a more capable mind that can absorb the complexity of your theory.
Learn to recognize how words are used and just try to understand the other person’s point without trying to force the exact wording you wish they would use.
Then stop wasting my time and play your games with someone else please.

spin

What do you mean by history? You seem to be using it in such a way that it has very little useful meaning separating it from simply past reality.

Either you have read what he said in Gal 1:11-12 or you haven't.

Read the statement by Paul.

Why conjure Ebion into existence? When there is a logic, it will happen. You want a logic but I've already said that it would be sufficient for Paul to think that the expected messiah had come and performed his salvific act of sacrifice.

You can take it any way you like. When you aren't trying to understand you won't understand.

You are hooked on this stuff about a historical core. You understand the drug metaphor. You just don't like it, but won't get past your addiction.

You are confusing positions with beliefs.

I refer you to three positions:

1. mythical origin (regarding a symbolic event rather than a worldly one),
2. fictional origin (we made it all up to dupe you), and
3. reific origin (turning of non-real into real, such as Paul accepting his revelation as a reflection of reality).

These three hypotheses have nothing in themselves to do with beliefs.

No, I was not suggesting this. I was saying that Paul believed that a messiah had come. What the reality was is irrelevant to Paul's belief. He didn't get the information from

I'm trying to use Galatians as a historical source. Try for the life of you to introduce Acts, which disagrees with Pauline epistles, as a historical source. When you can do that and explain why Acts conflicts with Galatians and other works, then you can use the Acts data.

I never made such a claim. You are misconceiving what I said, because you are projecting your own desires onto me.

I indicated that Paul didn't need any Jesus-believing precursors, because his gospel he clearly states didn't come from any.

Now this was your claim about Paul:

"he was persecuting people who thought he was the messiah."

Please give me the actual source for the claim. Otherwise retract it.

He clearly states in Gal 1:15-16 that god revealed his son to Paul. He also clearly states that he didn't get his gospel from any person. The result is that Paul didn't have a prior source. Your desire to understand the revelation is interfering with your understanding of the result.

To repeat, I said:

Mark had its evolution. Matthew had its evolution based on literary and oral sources, as did Luke.

Did I say anything about Mark not being one of the literary sources? Read what is said to you not what you want to read.

If you read analyses by scholars in the field of folklore and tradition inspired by the ideas of Milman Parry you'll see that Mark exhibits traits of other tradition developed bodies of literature. (Ask if you'd like a specific reference.)

Mark also features structures within structures sequences of brief stories stories such as the two centered around feedings of thousands from bread and fishes. That there are two feedings shows a divergence in tradition which is collected back into one. I cannot say what a proto-Mark looked like if anything. I can only show you the traces of the development.

The later evolution of christianity is irrelevant to the start of the religion. You believe that there was a "historical core" to christianity, so that not all of it was "historical". How did the rest come about? I don't need an answer, but by answering that for yourself you'll save me the effort of telling you things you should have some inklings about.

Do you know who the retellers of the Homeric stories were? It is sufficient that there are signs of retelling in both (Homeric and christian) traditions. All you need do is consider the improvements in the telling of Matthew over Mark for example.

Dear onlookers, can you believe this statement? Am I totally unable to communicate to you onlookers what Elijah seems totally incomprehending of? Can Elijah truly just not understand each step I've presented or how they hang together?

And I don't need to. His information didn't come from anyone on earth. Go figure. Either you don't believe what he says or you do.

Invention is a conscious act. Paul didn't set out to invent Jesus. He had some sort of eureka moment. When you continue to use erroneous language you won't say anything meaningful.

Who told him about it, when he says that no-one told him??????????

Why is this point so hard for you to grasp?

Non sequitur. Paul didn't know Jesus and he wasn't told about him.

Paul never met Jesus.
Paul wasn't told anything about Jesus by anyone in the world.
Where do you think Paul learnt about Jesus?

We have to work with what Paul himself says in his authentic texts.

You still haven't read the source reference. It is patently clear.

If the salvific act was to be of any meaning Jesus had to have died in the real world.

Read his letters to get some idea.

When you talk about something being "made up" you are attributing intent. Something that is made up is fiction. Paul believed his messiah was real. Your use of terminology continues to cause problems.

Yes. Stop using the word "history" this way if you want to be understood in a technical conversation. History is the attempt to show what happened in the past. Something that is historical has been shown to have been in the past.

The difference between "historical" and "real" in the matters we are trying to deal with is that something may have been real but cannot be shown to have been real, ie it isn't historical. Something that is historical has been shown to be real. Something that is not historical hasn't.

It may or may not have been real.

The theory isn't complex at all, if you cared to read it.

When your use of words is prevents you from understanding what is being said to you, the problem isn't with the speaker.

You're a pot looking for a kettle.


spin

aa5874

That is your job. You are the one who have a vivid imagination. You like to make stuff up.

I only present the facts.

And these are the fundamental facts: Jesus was presented by the authors of the NT, church writers, and even the non-canonised writings of antiquity as an implausible fictional character, the son of a God, born without sexual contact, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

And, secondly, there is no history whatsoever of this creature on earth by any known writers of antiquity except for forgeries in the writing of Josephus.

Jesus can be reasonably considered a myhtical creature.

Now, you present your facts about the history of your historical Jesus.

I forgot.

You have no facts for your historical Jesus.

Well, read Matthew 1.18 and Acts 1.9 and you will see what the authors wrote about Jesus. It is written he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and ascencended through the clouds. He is presented as mythical as the myth Achilles in Homer's poem.

Well, at least now you admit that Jesus can be classified as a myth, he was presented, just like the myth Achilles in Homer's poem, in an implausible and fictional way without any known history.

I have already told you people can imagine anything, some people let their imagination run wild but they have no facts to support their imagination.

Some people are very gullible, it is your fundamental human right to believe anything, but you cannot deny, and you have already admitted, that you have no facts and do not expect any facts about your Jesus.

You have problems when you think that your imagination can make history out of myths without any facts.

Opinion

Paul never met Jesus but he knew of his stories. When he was going by his the name of Saul. He was there when Stephen was stoned to death. And Stephen's ending speech was "They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous one. And now you have betrayed and murdered him." "And Saul was there giving approval to his death."

Plus I'm sure he knew why he was putting the followers of Jesus to jail. He had to know this in order to put those who are the followers in jail and those who are not.