gurugeorge

I don't think he was necessarily first in his time to experience and proclaim this "thing" - it seems to have been some sort of teensy-weensy religious fad that started before him (he seems to be consulting people involved in something similar before him).

But if roughly standard dates for the texts are accepted (which for the purposes of this argument, I do), then "Paul" writings are the earliest writings we have, relating in any way at all to this Christian business.

So my main point, my main theme, is that the earliest evidence we have in our hands seems to point to these earliest people having visions (as in "Paul" getting his gospel direct from this "Jesus" entity he "saw"; as in the list of woo-woo stuff they did in Paul's congregation) and mystical experiences (all the "Paul" stuff that seems to speak of a kind of mystical union with this "Christ" principle). "Paul" (on this dating of the texts) wasn't the first person to have this "Christ" experience, but he was pretty early, and he seems to have done a lot to spread the cult in its earliest days.

So at this juncture, we're on a fine balance point: all this kind of mystical and magical stuff COULD have arisen in response to a human Jesus recently dead - some combination of mass hysteria, confabulation, confusion, etc., etc. The real meat of the argument, as I see it, is in the fact that we have NO REASON to go that route, since there's no independent evidence of a human Jesus (and nothing internal in the text, apart from the dubious "Brother of the Lord" reference).

And since we therefore have no good reason to believe in an euhemeristic origin for this particular myth, then the evidence we do have suggests a straight-up, standard type of religious startup, with small groups of people having visions of a "god" or a "deity" or a "spirit" or a "demon".

The startup of Christianity is in mysticism and occultism - people whipping up a deity in a frenzy of scriptural exegesis, visionary experience and mystical experience. Scriptural study feeds back into what these people see in their visions, and at some point it "clicks" and they're all "seeing Jesus", and this "Jesus" (in reality a fabrication of their several brains that happens to have a certain coherence due to shared ideas) talks back to them and tells them what happened to him while he soujourned on earth (the "secret long hidden" - viz, he came in obscurity, got crucified, rose on the third day, fooled the Archons and won a spiritual victory).

But for you aa, I have my question which you've never answered: if, in your view, the standard dating is incorrect, and the "Paul" writings are a much later fabrication, why do they contain gnostic-sounding stuff? If the "Paul" writings are a product of a time in which orthodoxy felt the need to fabricate writings from a supposed early (but late ) apostle, why did they put stuff in the fabrication that's borderline heretical? Why invent that stuff, in a late fabrication, at a time when the Church was engaged in a struggle against that very stuff, in a more developed form? That the "Paul" writings do contain elements that seem proto-gnostic, suggests the writings HAD to be kept because the writings were FAMILIAR ENOUGH to Christians in general. The proto-gnostic stuff in "Paul" had to be kept in and (as Price says) hedged about by warding Catholic interpolations (that gently shoo the reader away from a "heretical" interpretation of the heretical elements in "Paul"). Again, if you were fabricating a late text, why go to all this trouble? Why have those gnostic-sounding elements in there at all?

aa5874

But, what is the source of this teensy-weensy religious fad?

There is just no source of antiquity that can support your teensy-weensy theory.

The sources of antiquity for the Jesus Christ movement claimed that there was at least 8000 Jews that were converted to the Jesus Christ movement in just two days alone before Saul/Paul was blinded by a bright light..

Why do you accept an early date when there is no external source of antiquity that can support such a date?

I have already pointed out that every single marker or indication that the Pauline writer was first or early is missing from supposed later writings.

The Synpotics and Revelation do not show any awareness of the Pauline visions and revelations when a passage by passage, a line by line, an a word by word examination is carried out.

The "woo-woo stuff in the Pauline writings are corroborated by Acts of the Apostles that place Saul/Paul after the day of Pentecost when the disciples through FICTION became multi-lingual and after Saul/Paul was fictitiously converted by a bright light.

And, you have made an unsubstantiated claim. You appeal to authority instead of providing the historical evidence that Paul was the earliest even when Paul claimed he was LAST.

We are at no balancing point. Everything has overturned. There is just no external historical source that can show Paul was early when Paul himself claimed he was LAST and was corroborated by his close companion Luke in their own story

Of course there are REASONS to doubt that the Pauline writer was first when the Pauline writer did not ever claim he was first in his own story. The Jesus story did not start with the Pauline writer's mystical revelations, the Pauline writer confessed that the "FAITH" did exist before his visions.

The PAULINE writer himself confessed that the "FAITH" did exist, that he persecuted the "FAITH", and that they were apostles BEFORE he had his mystic revelations.

The Pauline Jesus was already in heaven or had left earth before the PAULINE writer had his visions.

I do not know all the reasons why people lie and fabricate fiction.

But, I can show what I have found in the sources of antiquity.

The Pauline writer confessed that the "Faith" did exist, that he persecuted the 'Faith", that there were apostles of the "Faith" and he was the LAST to see Jesus before he had his mystical visions and there is no other source of antiquity that can show that the PAULINE writer mystical visions started the "FAITH".

Now, why was Acts of the Apostles including in the Canon when the Pauline writer contradicted the author about his Jerusalem travels? Why go through all that trouble? Why did the author of Acts write a fictitious account of Saul/Paul's conversion?

I don't know why Acts of the Apostles was Canonised but it was and it is because of Acts why it can be deduced that the PAULINE writer was LAST and that he was not a 1st century character living before the Fall of the Temple.

The story of Jesus, the name Jesus Christ, was invented after the Fall of the Temple and the Pauline writer made references to JESUS CHRIST over 150 times.

I cannot find any 1st century writing from a GNOSTIC who mentioned a character called JESUS that was worshiped as a God.

Saul/Paul was not mad at all, just Last.

The Pauline confession.

gurugeorge

Yes, and we know that's bollocks because there's no external corroboration for a large movement. So if there was any movement at all at that time, it must have been small (e.g. too small to appear above Josephus' radar, i.e. teensy-weensy).

You must bear in mind that my theory is based on this: I AM TAKING THE STANDARD DATING AS CORRECT FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT. I'm not interested (for the moment, maybe some other time) in what might be the case if it's wrong. I'm interested in what shakes out IF the standard dating is correct. (This is rational because I haven't the time to go into it too deeply, so in that context of limited time and energy to devote to this subject, I have to find some common ground between me and the people who will mostly be disagreeing with me. So provisionally, I trust that this dating has been thought hard about, and isn't just something biblical scholars have pulled out of thin air. I presume, for example, that it is based partly on linguistic evidence, which is somewhat "hard" in this context. I am aware that there is a slight problem in that this early dating is based partly on Acts which I have some problems with, and I think the truth has been distorted, but I don't see any reason to think the whole of the tradition's self-history is made out of nothing.)

As I've explained to you before, I don't agree with your methodology, because of the ever-present possibility that we are missing crucial evidence. You don't seem to factor that in to your theories, so we're always at loggerheads on this. I don't understand why you are criticizing my theory on the basis that one of its stated assumptions might not be true. Sure, it might not be true - I've played around with some of the Dutch Radical ideas that are more like what you are proposing - but I'm not interested in that possibility at the moment, I'm interested in what might be true IF that dating is correct.

I hope that clarifies. It's quite unpleasant to be constantly shouted at by somebody who seems to agree with some of what you're saying, but somewhat bafflingly insists in vociferously arguing about some interesting but (in relation to one's present interests) tangential point.

As to the "last" business - I really don't see why you're banging on so argumentatively about it. "Last" - well what does it mean? In and of itself it doesn't say on its own face whether that's "last" in terms of years, tens of years or hundreds of years. The obvious meaning in terms of the text itself is only a few years (i.e. only a few years after EITHER the event of the first Jerusalem people "seeing" their Jesus in scripture and visionary experience, OR the event of a human Jesus' death). So he was last in a line of people to "get it", whatever "it" really was.

aa5874

Well, if you know that Acts of the Apostles is essentially bollocks with respect to the Jesus movement, then why are you claiming or speculating that the Jesus movement may have been small, (too small for Josephus' radar) when all you have is bollocks?

Just as you have NO EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (only bollocks) for a large Jesus movement, likewise you have NO EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (only bollocks) for a small Jesus movement.

And further Josephus' radar was EXTREMELY SENSITIVE. His radar did detect a loner, Jesus the son of Ananus, who had not one single follower.

Jesus of Galilee with thousands upon thousands of followers, did not show up on Josephus' radar.

Once Josephus' radar was sensitive enough to detect a mad-man and a loner, he must have been able to capture the offspring of the Holy Ghost if he was living in Galilee.

Well, you have just confirmed that you are not interested in the history of the canonical Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul but just want to win arguments.

When you admit that you have problems with Acts and that the truth has been distorted then you do have reasons NOT TO ACCEPT the Canon with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul.

But, I have not claimed to be promoting Dutch Radical ideas, I have only shown what I have found in the Canonical NT and writers of antiquity.

My ideas come from sources of antiquity.

Now, we are having a discussion and I dis-agree with your assumptions because you cannot provide any historical source of antiquity to support your assumptions.

So, if you think I agree with you sometimes why is that unpleasant? You appear to be think I am "shouting" when I highlight your errors, but it is your own errors that are screaming at you.

Once you admit Jesus of the Canon did not exist, then the Pauline chronology and history must be bogus.

But, we have the passage in the Canon. When you read the passage you may understand what "LAST" means.

Now, what does FIRST mean?

I can't find any passages in the Canon where the Pauline writer claimed he was FIRST to preach the FAITH.

gurugeorge

For any Jesus movement at all, we have no external evidence till 100 or so (the first Roman reference to Christians? I can't remember offhand). But if there's evidence at 100 or so, that means a movement could have been going before that, only it was very small.

Why even leave this little amount of wiggle room? Well, because we do have a tradition that has its own story, and that is not totally negligible. (e.g. when I say I have doubts about Acts, that doesn't necessarily mean it's all total rubbish - again, it's feasible that it could have been made up incorporating some "family legends" of the movement IF that movement did indeed have roots going back a bit in time).

Indeed, and that's a good reason to suspect there was no human Jesus. But a small group of people with a new idea in Jerusalem at that time, and someone associated with them who went around the known world of his day seeding little study groups about a subject? That's pretty feasible.

We mustn't look at the "hype" of the Jesus movement itself in its later years, about its earlier years. The story we have is of a movement that attracted thousands right off the bat. That doesn't gel with the facts. But the facts do gel with a small movement subsequently hyping up its origins.

It's actually the same today: there are thousands of little religious and quasi-religious cults running around that wouldn't merit a mention in a general history of contemporary times - even a general history that had a chapter on religions of the day. Some of them have maybe a few dozen members, some only a few hundred.

so my argument is that IF there was a movement at all circa 50 CE, it MUST HAVE BEEN very tiny, more like study circles, or study groups.

A conversation does not normally involve screaming and shouting - emphasis maybe, but surely you must know that a lot of capitals and bolding comes across as "shouting"? It's not pleasant to be at the other end of it. Maybe you're frustrated or something that people don't understand you, but it's considered impolite in cyber-land to shout all the time.

No, there are aother possibilities. Partly bogus is one of them, and an interesting question is: bogus in what partial respects?

Bear in mind that I'm not seeing in the "Paul" writings any evidence of a human Jesus either - precisely the opposite, an idea, a visionary experience, a mystical experience. It's just that the idea happens to have a chronological reference in it, and that's the hook that attracts subsequent pseudo-historical filling-in.

aa5874

You are promoting mis-leading information.

We have NO evidence at all that all people called "Christians" were only Jesus believers at around 100 CE. We have evidence from an apologetic source that there were people called Christians who believed in a magician called Simon Magus as early as 41-54 CE.

We have sources of antiquity which clearly indicate that people were called Christians who only believed in God. It must be noted that the entity called God predated Jesus by hundreds of years.

And further, the belief that Jesus did not or did exist is irrelevant to the word "christian" since the word is derived from the Greek word for "anointing with oil".

But, what is the evidence that Acts of the Apostles is not total rubbish with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul?

What credible corroborative source of antiquity can show that Jesus did ascend through the clouds, that the disciples did become multi-lingual on the day of Pentecost, that Jesus spoke to Saul/Paul after a bright made him blind to reality and that the author of Acts did travel with Saul/Paul?

It must be noted that a Pauline writer implied that the information in Acts about his travels to Jerusalem were chronologically erroneous.

In effect, there is no corroborative source for the Pauline activities, not even from his supposed close companion and apologetic source.

Please identify what is not total rubbish in Acts with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul!

How can you argue for "feasibility" without DATA. You appear not to understand the difference between speculation and DATA.

You need some PRETTY GOOD DATA (external credible sources of antiquity) to support your "feasibility speculation".

Well once there was no entity called Jesus the offspring of the Holy Ghost who was worshiped as a God in Judea, then your SPECULATION about teensy-weensy study groups is irrelevant.

What did the teensy weensy study group say about the non-existing Jesus of Nazareth?

Well, perhaps I will highlight all and ONLY your GOOD POINTS so that you may get the impression that I am not shouting but congratulating you.

Well, please answer your own question.

You have proposed that "partly bogus" is a possibility, what evidence or source of antiquity can you provide for your proposal that the Pauline writings are partially bogus with respect to Jesus and the disciples?

You have NO answer but will continue to speculate.

So, the Pauline writings are bogus with respect to Jesus. There was no character called Jesus Christ yet the Pauline writings made specific references to JESUS over 120 times.

We have at least 120 BOGUS references to Jesus in the Pauline writings or ALL references to JESUS in the Pauline writings are TOTALLY BOGUS.

A Pauline writer implied Jesus was betrayed in the night and did sup with his disciples, but the betrayal is a bogus story invented from Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagunt.

The evidence clearly indicates that the Pauline writer, just like the Gospel writers depended heavily on Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint for their Christology not on any "mystical visionary experience."

Saul/Paul was not mad, just last and a liar.

Petergdi

You are making two mistakes - misreading Paul, and taking the heresiologists at face value.

Heresiologists are very likely to say that any sect which refuses to say "Jesus is God" is making Christ into an "plain and common man." But in fact there are many people who accept what the New Testament says about Jesus who refuse to use the word "God" directly of Jesus. You should have noticed that of all the things that Paul says about Jesus, he never directly says that Jesus is God. While it is understandable that someone could read the passages from Paul you quoted and others as well as indirectly saying that Jesus is in some sense God, failure to notice the fact that it is always indirect is certainly misreading Paul.

The disagreement between the the Ebionites and Paul is entirely over the status of Torah. It is easy to see how someone could read Paul as antinomian. (Paul may be a sort of antinomian because he teaches that there is something better than the Law to direct obedience to God, but he is no libertine.)

You will notice that is Justin Martyr's discussion of Jewish Christians, he mentions their differences in regard to the Law of Moses, but not their christology.

Peter.

gurugeorge

Sure, I have it: evidence in the "Paul" writings of mystical and visionary experiences. That's sufficient to start a religion, without any human Jesus.

It seems to me you are fixated on reading the "Paul" writings as being about a human Jesus recently deceased - you're taking the orthodox reading for granted. But why? There's no particular reason to. There is no necessity to read the text that way: they could just as easily be about a posited Jesus recently supposed deceased. A posited Jesus who was (as "Paul" and the others thought) also "experienced", "met" and "spoken to" in visions.

Then later the text could have been (genuinely or disingenuously) misread and the apostles historicized into being people who knew the cult figure personally. We know that some "Paul" writings were faked, and we know that even the "genuine" letters have some interpolation in them. This is consistent with the original intent and meaning of the content of the letters being different from what it was later interpreted to be.

Speculative you say? It's also speculative that the "Paul" writings really were and could only have been about a human Jesus recently deceased! We are in the realm of competing speculations because none of the evidence is sufficient to clinch the deal one way or another - it's all ambiguous and insufficient to make any particularly strong claims at all. Why? Because we don't know whether we have all the evidence necessary to make a final judgement. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

(Btw, re. your question: rather than praise me when I get things right, I'd rather you just conversed normally most of the time, thank you very much.)

aa5874

1.The Pauline writer did NOT WRITE that he started any religion. He wrote that there people in Christ BEFORE him and that he persecuted the Church of God.

2. The author of Acts did NOT WRITE that Saul/Paul started any religion. The author wrote that Saul/Paul attempted to destroy those who ALREADY believe in Jesus

3. The Church writers did NOT WRITE that Saul/Paul or the Pauline writers started any religion. The Church writers are in agreement with the author of Acts and the Pauline writings

You have NO evidence whatsoever from sources of antiquity that Saul/Paul or the Pauline writer started any religion.

This is the evidence in the Pauline writings.

Ga 1:23 - Ro 16:7 - You have no evidence that the Pauline writer started a religion,you are just propagating speculation.

Now, John, an author in the NT Canon, had visions and REVELATIONS. Please tell me what religion did John of Revelation start?

I made no claim about a human Jesus that was recently deceased in the Pauline writings.

It is for this very reason why I MUST HIGHLIGHT and BOLD my post.

I have persistently posted that the Pauline writer was a liar and LAST, and that Jesus was a fictitious character.

You appear to be fixated on speculations about the Pauline writer without presenting any external corroborative historical source from antiquity.

But, you have JUST demonstrated that you are just speculating.

Please tell me that the names of the authors of every epistle under the name of Paul?

So, you NOW ADMIT that after all YOU DON'T KNOW whether Paul was First or was the original author of the FAITH.

You have a serious problem.

I have shown you evidence that have CLINCHED my theory that Paul was last and a LIAR.

Look at another CLINCHER

Church History 3.4.8 Saul/Paul was aware of the LAST written Synoptic Jesus story.

Saul/Paul was not mad, just a LIAR and LAST.

. Well, please identify what exactly you needed to claim the Pauline writer started a religion when the evidence is absent?

Speculation.

You are fixated on speculation.

aa5874

Why can't you be wrong? Or what makes you right?

Why do you think you that you have read Paul right? And which Paul are you not mis-reading? The one you have mistaken for Paul?

I hope you don't mis-read these passages. The Pauline writer clearly called Jesus, the Son of God directly.

Ro 8:3 - 1Co 1:9 - 2Co 1:19 - Ga 2:20 - Ga 4:4 - The Pauline christology is not the christology of the Ebionites.

The Ebionites rejected all the Pauline writings.

You have made a lot of mistakes and still continue to make mistakes.

I will let Trypho the Jew in the writings of Justin Martyr expose SOME of your mistakes.

This is "Dialogue with Trypho" LXVII by Justin Martyr.

According to Trypho, Justin's Jesus was a monstrous phenomena like the Greeks. In effect, Justin's christology was similar to Greek mythology.