aa5874

The data is in the Pauline writings. The Pauline writers are directly dependent on mythology for their apostleship, revelations, gospel, and salvation.

The Pauline writers are directly dependent on a non-historical event, MYTH of the resurrection.

Once the mythological resurrection was not believed the Pauline writings were useless, they would have been in vain.

An human Jesus could not be RAISED from the dead. HJ is irrelevant.

Paul was an apostle of the resurrected.

Paul got his revelations from the resurrected.

Paul got his gospel from the resurrected.

Paul got his salvation through the resurrected.

The Pauline writings are essentially about the MYTHOLOGICAL resurrection of Jesus, the first-born of the dead..

Examine the data.


Ro 6:9 - Ro 14:9 - 1Co 15:20 - 1Co 15:14 - 1Co 15:17 - Ga 1:1 - Col 1:18 - HJ can't help Paul at all.

The best explanation for the data is that of MYTHOLOGY.

andrewcriddle

There has been discussion eg in Blog Entry on Mythicism of the problematic status of this passage from a Christian epitome of Cassius Dio. IMO it is not reliable historical evidence.

Andrew Criddle

ApostateAbe

OK, but I am still willing to accept it as evidence, at least for something. I would distrust a Christian account only if they have a reason to lie, and I don't think they would care whether the temple mount was destroyed in 70 CE or 130 CE. The prophecy of Jesus would seem fulfilled either way. In this case, the passage doesn't seem to say that the temple mount was destroyed, one way or the other, so I don't really get why this is an issue at all.

spamandham

There is enough data to entertain some specific points - the mini models I've been referring to - but you are demanding a Christian ToE. There is nowhere near enough data gathered for that.

bacht

The relevance is to dating Mark's Little Apocalypse, whether ca 70 or ca 135. Spamandham prefers the later date.

But it's interesting that none of the epistles refer to the destruction of the temple, even Hebrews, where the focus is on the replacement of the Mosaic sacrificial system. It doesn't get mentioned until Mark and the other gospel writers. This could mean the letters appeared before 70 or, if after, that references to the revolt were removed by later editors.

ApostateAbe

When you put it like that, it occurred to me that I see it the other way around. We have plenty of data to build a "theory of everything" of Christianity. We have 138,020 Greek words of the New Testament, in addition to the apocrypha and non-Christian writings, and all of the data is relevant to building a general theory of Christianity. However, we have relatively scant data for specific claims, such as whether or not Jesus was a carpenter or whether or not there was a historical crucifixion. It makes little sense to debate the smaller stuff if we haven't worked out the larger theories. The larger theories are the foundations for evaluating the probabilities of the smaller theories, and the larger theories actually have at hand a lot more data to help us decide between them.

bacht

We may have enough data to reconstruct a history of Catholicism, but not enough to clarify events before the NT books were written.

spamandham

I've seen it argued many times that since the epistles don't mention the destruction of the temple, they must pre-date it. But should we expect the epistles to to discuss the destruction of the temple if it is an event that preceeded the life of the author(s)? I don't think so. Let's examine every single reference to the Jewish temple within the epistles (authentic or not):

Romans 9:3+
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!

The writer is referring to what god had given the Jews. This still works if the temple is not standing, and Jewish "temple worship" did not end when the temple was ruined.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

Doesn't temple replacement theology make more sense if the temple needs replacing?

1 Corinthians 3:17
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

Why would the writer equate martyrdom with the destruction of the temple if the temple had not yet been destroyed? Consider the following two:

1. If anyone destroys the White House, he will be destroyed, and the citizens are the White House.

2. If anyone destroys the twin towers, he will be destroyed, and the citizens are the twin towers.

Which of these two makes more more sense?

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

...more equivocating of people with the temple.

1 Corinthians 9:13
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?

I think the author is using 'temple' here in a generic sense rather than specifically referring to the Jewish temple, but it's somewhat vague so I included it for completeness in case someone believes it is specific to the Jewish temple.

2 Corinthians 6:16
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

...more equivocation of believers with the temple.

Ephesians 2:19+
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Again, we have Paul substituting a spiritual concept for the temple. Doesn't this work best as a reaction to the destruction of the temple?

2 Thessalonians 2+
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

It seems to me this simply *must* be post Hadrian.

spamandham

This only follows if the NT has within it what is needed to reconstruct the origin of Christianity. I've argued endlessly that it does not, and have thus far only seen you argue that we need a comprehensive model. Are you now arguing that the NT has everything we need to reconstruct the *correct* history of Christianity?

No branch of science works this way. Science builds more comprehensive models up from collections of less comprehensive models. Of course, history isn't a science, but if it ever wants to get respect, it needs to start acting like one.

show_no_mercy

This seems more to fit the events of 40-41 CE when Caligula attempted to deify himself and wanted a statue of his likeness place in the Jewish Temple.