dog-on

?

The bigger catastrophe was, of course, that the Jews were still cursed with the Law, as a result of never getting the obvious, at least to the non-Jews, that Jesus was the Christ.

Of course, the Romans, the other gentiles and even the demons, knew it.

God gave them their chance and they blew it, in epic fashion, I might add.

How sad...

dog-on

Irrelevant...someone wrote those letters, someone claimed that they got their info from the scriptures and from God himself and not from any other person, so that person is, for the purposes of this discussion...Paul, regardless of when they were written, or by whom they were written.

Unless you have some evidence that this writer lied regarding his sources.

spin

You are not responding to the "if" proposition. He basically says Jesus was real. You can claim that he was lying, but you have to demonstrate that. In matters of personal religious beliefs I tend to take texts as saying what the writer thinks they themselves believe. It's more probable to me that they are earnest and misguided rather than liars and charlatans.

I said earlier in this thread,

There are a number of possibilities for Paul's revelation (beside him making it all up):

1. communication from god
2. psychotic break
3. dream
4. recognition of what seems must be (requires contemplation of possibilities)

I don't know what you refer to with "based on what we have". You don't seem to have anything tangible on the matter.

Making accusations such as lying and falsehood, is the last choice, when you've eliminated other possibilities. You haven't done any evidence based elimination at all.


spin

aa5874

But, you yourself have questioned the writer called Paul. You have questioned his source of information.

You do not think the writer's statement about his revelations are credible or realistic so you have come up with alternate explanations.

You think the writer called Paul is lying?

You must recognise that the veracity of the writer and the true chronology of the writing must be known and is extremely relevant.

Elijah

Yes I remember the frustration trying to have a serious conversation with you, that’s why I don’t see the point in playing games again with someone who doesn’t believe in any of the theories being put forward but just wants to be critical of a lack of evidence. I consider your tactic just a pitiful way of avoiding scrutiny (and trolling) and see no point in trying to have a serious conversation with someone who uses such a ploy. I don’t believe you are using some unbiased method to reach the truth but instead you’re just looking for ways to get by without having to put your own ideas forward to be scrutinized
If you already know that then why do you ask for evidence you know doesn’t exist?
What evidence are you trying to explain? You haven’t shown the way you think that your theory went from not real to historical you have just complained about the titles given your theory.
I need it illustrated how it was confused for history. There is no way you don’t know what I’m asking for at this point.
From above.
How it goes from mythical I mean revelation to historical.
I see the revelation being about a man being the Christ and not a revelation to create a symbolic figure or whatever you consider the revelation to have been. Maybe you’re taking the whole revelation from god too supernaturally and not rationally like an epiphany.
The origin of Jesus is the discussion.
Because Paul and Tertullian aren’t comparable characters in your theory. Paul in the Tertullian example is the actual founder of the Ebionites and Tertullian in your Paul theory is unknown.
Like me thinking the fat jolly guy was the actual Buddha would be an expected mistake but me being confused and then creating a history and then a following that others believe in should be explained better.
We aren’t talking about spreading religions we are talking about mythical figures being spread as historical figures.
I really don’t see the difference in this discussion.
Did he believe the messiah actually came? As in existed?
No idea what you are saying or suggesting here, sorry. What is Paul’s gospel?


I was just explaining I consider mythical origin hypothesis and revelation origin hypothesis too similar to separate into different categories. Historical and non historical.
It’s not like I actually believe you when you say that you aren’t jumping to the conclusions. I just consider it a cheap argument tactic so you can avoid scrutiny and nothing to do with being responsible.
Anyone can throw a fact around, there is nothing impressive about that especially in the google age, but can you arrange the facts into a theory that explains what you think happened that makes sense?
The lack in logic is the lack of similarities in the examples you are presenting. What does revelation do to help spread the mistake?
I don’t know about Paul’s converts in your hypothetical situation. I don’t know who you consider Paul to be actually or the history surrounding him.

I’ll take that as a no you can’t show that Paul is the source of the Jesus story.
No idea what you believe other then you think Paul started it which is really just you presenting Paul as the Messiah. I haven’t begun to ask the questions of your personal theory that would explain to me what you believe happened.
I asked what you thought made your revelation theory more functional and concise then the historical core theory. I don’t see what you think the big deal with the revelation thing is or how you think it alone is capable of transforming imagination into historical figures.
Yea you shouldn’t hold your breath since you just posted a a previous post where we talked about the illogical expectations of evidence for a historical core. Just another cheap ploy. Aa would be proud.
I have no idea what view you think I’m projecting onto the past.
Are you saying that Paul told his followers that Jesus was real or that he had a revelation from God?
I have yet to see a reason to distinguish your theory from the rest. If something is presented where you actually show a new type of myth theory then I will reorganize my mental filing system and add a revelation theory category in.
If Paul says Jesus was real then what is the reason for believing he wasn’t historical? Is Paul saying he had a vision of new entity or is he saying he had a vision about a man he believed to be the messiah?
And your agnosticism towards all theories gimmick is what makes me think conversation with you is futile.
Again I don’t see the big deal about being converted from revelation versus being converted by man. Revelation while persecuting the group brings more weight to the message then just repeating what another man told you. It’s just marketing.

How do you know the revelation part isn’t the later addition and Paul wasn’t just a simple follower of Cephas sent to the gentiles?

aa5874

There is an error in the passage above, this should read, "I don't think Marcion was aware of any such writings according to Luke or the writer named Saul/Paul.."

Amaleq13

spin does not believe that any of the theories being put forward can be shown to be THE correct or even THE MOST LIKELY correct theory.

IOW, he is essentially arguing for an "agnostic" position.

Understand?

The idea that he is putting forth and which certainly can be scrutinized is that the data does not allow for anything resembling a secure conclusion. And this is true for all offered conclusions.

Elijah

I understand what he is presenting, yes. I just don't believe he is being genuine in his agnosticism but rather it's just a cheap argument trick. I don't believe people are that un-opinionated.

That's fine in theory but worthless in discussion; this discussion in particular since it is comparing hypothesis and having a rule that there isn't enough data to choose a hypothesis kind of excludes you from participating in the conversation... other then to point out the obvious, that being a lack of evidence from 2000 years ago. Choose a side and argue it out with reason. Don't just sit there and troll conversations going there is no evidence to prove anything which everyone already knows. Or at least designate one person to repeat the mantra over and over.

rlogan

Thanks spin. There are many that read what you are saying, incidental beneficiaries of the discussion between the deaf mouse and the eagle.

Acts appears to me to be a "bridging" exercise between different traditions. In the end merging everyone under the same tent as best they could.

Well I understand the point. Some of it is basic marketing - look at how this guy adopted Christ. If he did it, then it must be a great religion. Look at the martyrdom. Oh golly it is worth dying for...

Yes.

I really aprreciate your careful scholarship spin. Thank you. I'm a bull in a china shop.


Long ago one of your first responses to me was this whole business of differentiating between outright charletans (eg L. Ron Hubbard) and people who are sincere but understandably "delusional", (taking into context the culture and state of science at the time).

It is a compelling idea and commonplace to receive by revelation at the time I am sure. That crazy Jesus that was killed by the Roman seige weapon in CE 70 is an example of one who never gained a following as he was just a goofball.

Others would have received a following after the destruction of the temple because obviously faith in the Temple Priests would have been badly shaken. Lots of marketing potential for people receiving by revelation.

Amaleq13

Your perception of deception is mistaken.

Determining that no reliable conclusion can be obtained from the evidence is an opinion but it is also incorrect to suggest that is the only one spin has offered (ie the Ebion comparison).

The Ebionites were given an eponymous but fictional founder and he has suggested that much the same could explain the evidence under discussion. He has also, if not here then elsewhere, gone to great lengths to differentiate his position from mythicism.

That is funny a line when Stephen Colbert uses it on his show but it is too simplistic for the real world, amigo.

And please avoid making "troll" accusations in your future posts. They tend to be counterproductive in a rational discussion and are potentially subject to moderator action.