spin

No, not "matters of material history". More detailed tradition. Were the people who wanted to know more about Robin Hood interested in matters of material history? We shouldn't retroject modern ideas onto the past.

James The Least

It would be a remarkable coincidence if somebody else with almost the exact same name as Christ was "causing a disturbance among the Jews." This is a data point inconvenient for both HJ and MJ factions, since it argues for a HJ but places him in Rome in 49 AD. This cannot be hand-waved away. Suetonius is working from hearsay, like Tacitus, so he probably misunderstood followers of Chrestus to mean Chrestus was present at the scene, but we must allow for the possibility that Chrestus was Jesus and he was in Rome in 49 AD.

This is one of the biggest canards in the HJ toolkit. Does anyone ever read it in the context of 1 Corinthians? The crucifixion is the whole raison d'tre of Pauline philosophy; far from an embarrassment, it is the single most important event in the history of the world. The reason why it is "a stumbling block for Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" is because they are too ignorant and stubborn to recognize God's genius in confounding the wisdom of man, which Paul alone has deciphered through the Scriptures. What Paul is saying is that the Jews and Gentiles who don't recognize Paul's interpretation of Scripture are the ones who should be embarrassed, because their so-called wisdom is actually foolishness, only they don't realize it because they don't know God like Paul knows God.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

James The Least

Yes. Saying that the gospels may be legendary, but Paul and his so-called epistles are reliable historically, is much the same as saying that while Batman may be fictional, Commissioner Gordon has to be historical. It is all part of the same theological literary propaganda. None of it required historical persons or events, and given the church's record of lying and deception for the next thousand+ years, it would be remarkable indeed if there had been honesty and integrity at the beginning. We have no reason to think there was.

James The Least

Well, Paul may be legendary, so what he says about anything may be as applicable to reality as what Jesus says, or Hermes Trismegistus says. If he was real then he was a liar and phony anyway, so there's no reason to trust his witness either way.

James The Least

And your source for this nonsense is? Oh yeah, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles -- sources which are about as reliable historically as Aesop's Fables. Raw, naked church propaganda, conceived to vilify and dehumanize the Jews, and still working its poison effectively even now. Sad.

outhouse

As it stands paul has historicity, so your barking up the wrong tree.

outhouse

Not entirely


The only arguement i'd make is it would be more likely the Saducees hired paul.

fact is we dont know

James The Least

How exactly does Paul "have historicity" again?

outhouse

how exactly does he not have it???



why make a myth about a roman jew who spends much of his time in prison?

why make a myth about somebody who kills christians and then takes their religion to his roman brothers.


Were talking about someone with a leather buisiness and a father who was supposed to be a tent maker.





its one thing with conspiracy people say jesus is mythical, because that I agree, pauls jesus was mythical, doesnt mean jesus didnt have a historical core. But paul??? someone wrote the 7 early epistles, no reason for it not to be saul

Diogenes the Cynic

The seven "authentic" Pauline letters had a historical author, therefore "Paul" has historicity, by definition.

The idea that Paul himself is a made up character is something that lacks either evidence or necessity to hypothesize.