spamandham

I have no idea what you're talking about in regard to cartoons and Paul. The claims Paul makes are not cartoonish, delusional perhaps, but not cartoonish. People have visions, delusions of grandeur, and people derive things from scriptures. I would not attribute a supernatural cause to any of that, but it's a plausible experience.

You've added "And the not thru man is him not being taught/convinced about Christ from other men but by the spirit of Christ that is in the conviction of his followers." Are you claiming Paul says that?

Bifurcate much? There are other possibilities beyond just "fiction" or "eyewitness account".

What a waste of time this was. Good thing I'm bedbound at the moment with lots of time to waste.

Amaleq13

No, I've explained why the problem you imagine isn't necessarily a problem.

Elijah

What are we arguing about again?
No I’m saying that was how it was delivered to him. No he doesn’t say that, but that’s how the story goes. “I saw Stephen die and realized he was the real deal and became a believer” doesn’t really have the punch necessary to claim apostleship.
Yea that was in discussion of the third possibility of oral account that you don’t believe in but again won’t tell me what you do believe in.

Yes it is a complete waste of time to argue with me if you have no reason for me to consider your position.

Sorry about whatever has you in the bed. Hope you feel better soon. Jesus would say fast and pray (elevate breathing).

spin

I have no need to produce a theory. You are merely working with apparently untestable tradition and turning it into history. You can't see that that is blunder.

You still have nothing other than conjecture and blind faith.

So far you've presented none.

The question is how we can know a person is a historical figure -- because we have evidence. You have example of evidence, epigraphy, coins, statuary all read with literary evidence which is confirmed by the hard evidence. That is how you do history. What you are doing is not history. It has nothing to do with history.

It's not a matter of understanding scripture. It is a matter of understanding evidence for history and you haven't produced anything yet and you've basically admitted you can't.

You're a great evader of responsibility. You claim that there is a historical core to the traditions about Jesus. You need to produce the evidence of the historical core. Ancient literature is full of entities that apparently were never real. Do you also turn them into historical because they are in ancient literature? If not you must have some criteria which makes this one different. What are they?

So you admit that there isn't a historical core?

It's an art.

Logic is used with evidence. Common sense is what leads one to conclude the earth is flat or that there must be WMDs in Iraq. Common sense only sometimes works. When you know little about the context of the material you are analyzing, common sense will not help. You will interfere with an understanding of the subject by making inappropriate conjectures based on knowledge of modern situations and on modern assumptions.

It's a typical blunder reproduces frequently here: deciding without evidence that Jesus must be either historical or fictional.

For your information "fictional" is not the same as "mythical". It is an alternate theory with even fewer credentials for explaining the data. It involves someone deliberately making up the figure with the intention of making people believe. The mythical Jesus is a Jesus who did not exist in the real world, but existed in a mythical plane in order to perform cultic necessities.

There are of course other ways for a non-real entity to come into existence and be believed as real. For example one can make logical errors, such as with regard to the founder of the Ebionite movement, Ebion. The name "Ebionite" actually comes from the Hebrew word EBYWN, meaning "poor", but that didn't stop early fathers from believing that the movement was founded by Ebion and Tertullian argued against him. By the time Epiphanius wrote about him, he'd developed a birth place and other traditions.

Yet another way someone might enter a tradition is through a psychotic break. A charismatic leader announces the reality of something that came to him in a dream or revelation and the acolytes accept and re-elaborate.

Here are some ways that a figure can enter a tradition:

1. historical core
2. myth
3. fiction
4. error
5. dream
6. revelation

The text is there for you to read. You shouldn't need me. You should be able to get as much out of it as me, shouldn't you?

Too bad you don't appreciate your error.

The notion that you are trying to tie to Paul is "historical", ie something that can be demonstrated from evidence about the past. Paul didn't need it to believe Jesus was real.

Humor me a little and explain your "evidence" at length.

You don't like its aptness. But so far you aren't being logical about your ideas of history. You just seem to want replacement therapy. Another analogy is that you're a junkfood junky who won't stop what you're eating unless you can get something else. I'm asking you to stop being a junky for a while. In the issue of Jesus you can withhold judgment, can't you?

This seems to be a non sequitur.

Stated by a guy who apparently doesn't know enough about either. You're supposed to be looking for a historical core, not listening to opinions and allowing them to shape your analyses.


spin

Elijah

You need to produce a theory to show that there is competing possibility which you haven’t shown.
Blind faith like believing in a myth theory with no evidence to support it?
You know the evidence that is out there, I’m not going to show you anything new. If you don’t think he is from a historical core from what you’ve read, I really wish you would show what you read to make you think that.
What kind of coins and statues do you expect to find of a first century son of a carpenter? Do you expect them to be made during his lifetime? If not how far along before you think his little cult got around to that? Again, just unreasonable expectation of evidence.
I fully admit I can’t, would you like to move on?
I’m a great evader of responsibility? From the person who refuses to put forward an alternate theory to prove that the commonly held opinion isn’t correct.

Boy, how did you come to that conclusion?
I’ve decided with evidence but not evidence that you accept as credible… as I say again.
Mythical or fictional shouldn’t confuse the issue. Made up, not of historic origin. What is the mythical plane?
Yea and the same way that error was corrected by contemporaries; the Jesus myth error should have been corrected or at least argued against substantially. It’s one thing for few people to get confused about a subject they don’t know but did the ebionintes think there founder was named ebion?
Which of that do you believe happened?
Nice. I want to know what you got out of it. I want to know how you understand his revelation. What do you think his philosophical world outlook is?
He didn’t deny a historical Christ he just didn’t meet him. He believed he was real. It was necessary for him to still die he just didn’t need to witness the death for the spirit of his death to reach him.
The scripture and church fathers all assume him to be a historical story. As does reality say that is the most likely scenario because historical cores are made mythical not mythical cores made historical typically. About as at length as I’m going to go.
It’s hard not to be rude when talking about your analogies but I don’t find them very good at all.
Asking for evidence that shouldn’t logically exist doesn’t sound crazy to you?
I’ll listen to opinions, if they sound rational I may believe them. I know I don’t know enough but I realize I never will, so I am just going to go with most likely.

spin

Stop being a junkie.

Any theory.

For lack of evidence you withhold judgment in order to not talk nonsense.

But without evidence you'll still come to a conclusion.

OK, then you'll accept the notion that there is no historical core available for Jesus. (Again, I underline: this doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, just that there is no evidence that shows he did.)

Junkie.

It follows from when you admitted you haven't got evidence.

And you refuse to elucidate this so called evidence. Without evidence your claims of a historical core are worthless.

Why don't you ask people who believe the notion. I've seen it in ancient literature. Where did Marduk defeat Tiamat? Where did Mithras slay the bull?

To get you back on track, Paul didn't have any evidence that Jesus existed. He learnt about Jesus in a revelation. There is no need for Jesus to have existed for Paul to believe through revelation that he did exist. Jesus's existence is irrelevant to Paul's position. It is sufficient that Paul believed he existed, just as it was sufficient for any priest of Zeus to believe he existed.

This may be common sense to you but not based on any evidence. You are waffling about stuff you haven't analyzed.

It's irrelevant to the reification of a non-existent entity.

Do I have to believe any? Do you?

Next you'll be asking the color of his underwear.

Stop with the anachronistic notion. If you mean "real Christ", say so.

Yup. I guess you were using the term "historical" when you meant "real". Paul seems to have believed Jesus was real.

You are confusing your terminology. None of the church fathers assumed Jesus was historical. They believed he was real.

I can understand your problem. You need a fix.

There is no way you can claim that. To claim someone is historical you need evidence. You don't have any. You claim he's historical. You must be crazy according to your "logic".

You don't know anything about likeliness in these instances.


spin

Elijah

Oh yea Spamandham

Did that work for you as the author's intent or did you have something else in mind?

Elijah

You’re really making sense now.
Man.
You are failing to see the absurdity of your refusal to provide an alternate theory.
Yea I have to. I need to move on to the next problem. I don’t feel like sitting around my whole life trying to prove for sure that he had a historical core when odds are it was. If at some point down the line a historical core contradicts the conclusions I come to I will reevaluate it… or if evidence to support another origin is presented. Doesn’t that seem like the logical way to try to figure out what is going on? You aren’t going to get the evidence you want to prove him historical so you can either sit there and pout or move on.
That’s not what historical core means. There is no undisputable proof of his existence is what I am saying.
Trite.
No sorry incorrect. There is evidence there just isn’t the evidence that it would take to convince you.


Scripture and the church fathers all consider him historical. If that isn’t evidence for you because you want a statue or a painting of Jesus from his life or maybe a roman death certificate or whatever ridicules demand you have I can’t help you.
In the writers and listeners imaginations. It’s meant to be symbolic. I don’t know what this myth plane you are talking about is.
Paul had heard of Jesus before he had a revelation of him being the Christ because he was persecuting the Christians at that time. In order for him to have a revelation of Christ he had to be introduced to the idea. The fact that he uses revelation as a guide does nothing to argue against a historical Christ. It doesn’t say he didn’t need a real Christ to exist. The whole concept is him dying for the people… which he believed after he saw Stephen follow suit.
Your position isn’t based on evidence. Oh wait you don’t have a position. Positionless.

It’s relevant to distinguish between someone making a mistake and a myth being confused for history.
It would be nice to not be talking to a wall. Believe anything you want but I’m just going to sit over here and believe nothing cause there isn’t enough evidence you like is nutty nutty nutty.
Yea that made a lot of sense; me asking you how you interpret his understanding of revelation and philosophical outlook is like asking about his underwear. I have no idea how you understand scripture.
Why do you want me to say real? What does it matter?
Talk about beating something to death.
I will say this hopefully for the last time to you, there is evidence, just not evidence that you consider worthy by your standards. Do you get that?


Did you want to bother to make a point about likeliness in these instances or is it more of your pointlessness in play.

spin

The junkie comes back to the same thing: if not this drug, give me another.

If you're happy about being non-commital about Robin Hood, why can't you be coherent with Jesus?

You don't have a historical core. You're just happy to run with your conjecture.

So you don't know whether he existed or not, so you know you don't have a historical core. You merely have unsourceable traditions.

Triteness has no impact on truth content.

You talk a bout all this evidence and your pockets are still empty.

I have already been through this with you. To use the term "historical" as you do is to render its scholarly content void. You are misusing the term.

People's opinions are irrelevant to your task. Traditions may come from real sources or not. Make the distinction.

How can you claim that "[i]t’s meant to be symbolic"?

You are not dealing with what Paul says. You are confusing sources. Stephen is irrelevant to Paul, unless you believe in the stories of the undated book of Acts, whose traditions you've given no analysis of.

And there is a reason: there is no evidence on which to base a position.

Stop misusing the term "history". You use vague inappropriate meanings for key terms and wonder why you're in a mess.

History is the attempt to delineate the past based on evidence. When something is historical, it has evidence to back it up. It seems to me that you are consistently confusing the notions of "real" and "historical".

This forum is called "Biblical criticism and history". That's a rough description of what is supposed to go on here. When you do history it's with evidence. Not having evidence means not being able to do history. If you think that's nutty, then leave.

Asking questions that you have no power to answer is the issue.

You will make more sense.

If you don't like it, why don't you start acting in a more scholarly manner?

You've said umpteen times that there is evidence. and still you cannot present it. You're incredible.

Until you can present what you think is evidence it cannot be vetted. I guess it's safer that way.

In the end, it seems you're a consumer of opinions. Evidence or the lack thereof is irrelevant. Your claims about probabilities and likelinesses are not based on any examined evidence. You'll just listen to opinions and juggle them.

You're left with deciding that Jesus was real somehow that is not transparent (you want to call him "historical", but have no evidence for historicity), for some reason that is not transparent. You won't abandon this non-reasoned committal you've made for reasoned non-committal. You want something to replace what you already believe. If you don't need to commit for Robin Hood, why do you have to commit for Jesus?


spin

spamandham

I'm not claiming it's necessarily a problem, I'm claiming it's a problem at face value that is resolved only by speculation. The need for hidden variables decreases the likelihood that the premise is true. The greater the need for hand waving the less likely the scenario.