fatpie42

Ok, try that again without the obscurantism. What is your point here?

That sounds like a bit of a non-sequitur to me. I am saying that just because there are similar stories to that of Jesus which are used as the centrepiece for religious movements and involve a central figure. I don't see why we should presume that any of these religious figures are based on a historical figure.

I'm not sure how you mean to justify that statement. I can only presume that you believe that virginal mother, usage of wine in both Christian and Dionysian ritual and resurrection all have nothing to do with salvation:


Something being plausible isn't enough to make it historically true. You cannot continue to excuse anything dodgy by calling it "a later legend added in" indefinitely. You need to explain why, in a story filled with clear elements of fiction, you are deciding arbitrarily to choose certain elements as historical. Many parts of the Illiad are plausible, but that doesn't make Achilles a historical figure...

This is beginning to sound rather similar to a defence of homeopathy. There is no evidence outside the Bible of any tradition of setting known murderers free. Considering the patently obvious bias of the gospel writers, where is the lack of certainty here. If there was such a tradition there would be other sources corroborating it.

If you think there's not enough certainty on this issue, you might as well give up on historical analysis altogether.

So let's get this straight. Your argument that the story is not wholly mythical is based on the assumption that the gospel writers had absolutely no idea what happened during Jesus' life. Considering that the Biblical records are the only surviving documents close to the supposed time of Jesus' life, on what basis are we to presume that anyone knew anything about Jesus' life and that he even lived a life in the first place?

I mentioned Josephus and you haven't answered that yet. Why should I go to find any more names? I'd like to see you actually try justifying your position for a change.

fatpie42

Naturally Paul believed that Jesus was the messiah and would thus be happy to use that title to describe Jesus. However, what I am asking is whether he asserts that the people he persecuted believed in Jesus or just in 'the messiah'.

If you can find clear evidence that Paul thought they believed in Jesus in particular then fair enough, but my point is that it shouldn't be taken for granted.


Paul's writings are dated back to the 1st century aren't they? I didn't think that was controversial. No one's going to pretend to be Paul before he was born, are they?

Ok, a compelling hypothesis then.

fatpie42

None of them would be Christian because 'Christianity' didn't exist yet.

What I found interesting about your argument was the ambiguity as to whether the people he persecuted were followers of Jesus.

Nevertheless, the verses you cited as evidence that Paul made it all up could just as easily (it seems to me) be interpreted as meaning that Paul believed his conversion had divine origin. It appears to me that Paul is claiming that he was not converted by any person, but that doesn't instantly mean that he was never told about Jesus by any person.

spin

Umm, yeah. Try to ask yourself what was meant. You might realize you could have saved a pair of posts.

Have you seen any historical evidence that those he persecuted were believers in a Pauline-like savior/messiah called Jesus?

Ya wanna try again?

That's what I was asking you about.

Are you also saying that, when Paul claims he didn't get his Jesus gospel from any other person, he wasn't correct?


spin

fatpie42

Here's what you quoted earlier:
The problem is that Paul saying that he didn't 'receive' it from man, doesn't mean that no man ever mentioned it. 'Received' could be referring to his conversion rather than simply being told something (i.e. the theme within Christian texts of 'hearing' the word of God).

This is even less compelling than the other quotation. Plenty of Christians to this day claim that God's son was 'revealed to them'. That doesn't mean that no human ever told them about it.

aa5874

The writer called Paul wrote that he persecuted the faith that he now preached[/b].

What "faith" was the writer called Paul preaching? If you find out the faith of the writer called Paul, you will find out who he persecuted.

1 Corinthians1.23 2Cor 4:5 - How was the date arrived at? And didn't people pretend to be Paul? Who pretended to write the letter with the name Paul as found in Timothy or Romans?

Ok, a hypothesis based on imagination.

spin

Gal 3:1 is about Galatians, whose belief in Paul's religion of his crucified savior Jesus had been shaken by apparently outside people who were not interested in Jesus but in submission to the law. These latter in Paul's eyes he asks about rhetorically "who beguiled you?" "What, are you abandoning Jesus, who was presented as crucified before your own eyes?"

The "some other Jesus" rhetoric was for the Corinthians and inappropriate in the case of the Galatians. The conflict was between belief in Paul's savior/messiah and his opponents' requirement of torah compliance. It would seem that Paul's Galatians were wavering towards torah compliance.

That's positive. There are a number of terminological difficulties, such as when Paul uses "christ" unqualified in this letter does the term necessarily mean Jesus or the messiah of Jewish messianic expectation? He would have tended to think that the two were one, but what about his opponents?


spin

Elijah

I’m trying to figure out what you are suggesting about the nature of the salvation here or if you are just recycling some ideas you’ve heard that aren’t supported.
The point I was making was that comparing the salvation of Jesus to the salvation of Dionysus is irrational if you don’t have any sources to site the understanding of salvation that Dionysus was known for.

Yes there are similar stories to Jesus out there but that doesn’t help with you demonstrating a mythical origin.

No I don’t. Why do you? What is your understanding of the salvation brought by Jesus?
I’m sure sometime I will be involved in a conversation here that tries to explain the reasoning behind why certain stories of Jesus were told but mainly it’s just going to be because they were trying to sell him as the Messiah and if you understand that then why there are so many outrageous tales told about him shouldn’t surprise you at all but be completely expected.
You would need such an enormous amount of evidence to make that claim that I just don’t see it as possible. To say Rome executed criminal would take evidence of that, to say Rome never let a criminal go would need an enormous amount more information that just isn’t possible to provide unless you are actually living in the time.
Never considered it for a career.
No I was giving that to you as a possible way to understand it, if you can’t handle Pilot being there.
Lol. Josephus has a mention of Jesus. An admittedly altered/added mention but a mention none the less so he can’t really be used as an example of silence. Is Josephus it? Can we move on past the “there should be information about Jesus” part?

spin

He also says: "nor was I taught it."

Read in conjunction with the earlier verse, we see that the revelation included the introduction of Jesus to Paul as well as the gospel message.

Paul then went off for three years, not contacting any knowledgeable person (1:17-18).

What in Galatians makes you think that Paul got any ideas from anyone else about Jesus?


spin

fatpie42

Can you find that reference for me?

You are pursuing the wrong angle here. You give me lots of verses about what Paul believed, but I already knew that Paul believed Jesus was the messiah. The question was whether there was anything to show that the people Paul was persecuting believed that. Apparently you have evidence that the people Paul was persecuting believed the same thing he did, so if you can just show me that reference it would clear this whole thing up.

You've written a bit more about this since the post of mine you were replying to here and I must admit I find this idea very interesting.

I always presumed at least some of the writings in the New Testament were dated through the age of the manuscripts, but now I come to think of it I'm sure I remember reading that we don't actually have any original manuscripts of any of the New Testament texts. Is that right?