spin

Game 1. "Let's talk about the historical core to the Jesus tradition." "OK, show me your evidence." "Why don't you show me your evidence for your competing hypothesis"

Game 2. "Your theory is full of holes." "What you present as holes are meaningless, trivial and irrelevant." "I'll invent some more holes."

Game 3. "How did Paul's revelation get confused with history?" "There was no confusion. It's not a matter of history, but the fact that Paul believed that Jesus was real." "But how did Paul's revelation get confused with history?"

Game 4. "If Paul believed that Jesus was real, then Jesus must have been real." "No, there is no necessary correlation between Paul's belief of something being real and the reality of the thing." "But if the notion of the reality of Jesus was necessary for Paul's religion, Jesus must have been real." "No, there is no necessary correlation between the notion of Jesus being real and his reality." "But (.. further spurious reasoning ..) Jesus must have been real."

And so on.

You still haven't dealt with it. I've been clear on the interpretation from the beginning. I have cited the text, but you don't want it. You want more otherwise you won't deal with the text.

Jesus died for the salvation of those people willing to worship him. He was resurrected to show that there can be life eternal. Rules and laws are irrelevant to the religion. Those people who believe in Jesus are the true Israel. (Etc.)

(Do not confuse message with reality.)

Your "understanding" is simply wrong. The passage says nothing about christians or believers in Jesus.

There are no primary texts on Mithras and Mithraism. Our understanding of the religion comes from antagonistic reports, from brief inscriptions and from very many pictorial representations of cultic imagery. You can find out more from works by Cumont, Vermaseren and recently by Roger Beck.

No-one cares about your impressions of his message. You either provide evidence or you change your tune. You have been asked where Paul got his information when he expressly says that he didn't get it from any other person. You flagrantly avoid your responsibilities.

Show me where you get the idea that there was a historical core to the religion that Paul inducted people into.

Paul states that his gospel came from his revelation. Paul also states that it was Jesus who god revealed to him. Paul also states that no person gave him his gospel. Read Paul and your difficulties will disappear.

You are talking nonsense. I have explained all that is essential to the view a number of times. You are just hard of understanding.

I don't really need to clarify anything further. You have shown a purposeful attempt not to understand. And I think you've succeeded very well.

You continue to confound Paul's belief in the coming of Jesus with the necessity that Jesus must have come. Doh!

I've given you the horse and I've given you the cart and you have confused them the way that you desired.

Paul doesn't attack Jesus to the beliefs of these people. They were messianic. Most Jewish messianists expected the messiah to come and bring about a Jewish world domination.

The same confusion of turning a belief into a reality. Paul believed that Jesus was real. Does that mean that Jesus was real?? Tertullian believed that Ebion was real. Does that mean that Ebion was real. Tertullian argued against Ebion. Was Ebion real?

Paul says that he was zealous for the traditions of his fathers, ie the Jewish religion. He states that he was a traditionalist, ie conservative.

This is derived from the text, but you are reading too much into it. Many Jews who were not of Paul's religion expected the messiah, ie christ. All the text says is that the assemblies in Judea were messianic. Paul, who was early on zealous for the traditions of his fathers wasn't messianic until his revelation. Then he developed some individual perversion of messianism that is centered more on the notion of a Greek savior than a Jewish messiah.

He never says that the people who spoke to were apostles of Jesus. (But it's good to see that you are starting to read the text. You're only six months behind now.)

I'm simply removing the incrustations not derived at all from the text.

Paul tells us in Galatians that his revelation was both of Jesus (1:15-16) and of the gospel (1:11-12).

If you are interested in knowing something about the development of traditions, I've already mentioned Milman Parry for a general background to tradition development. There has been a lot of specific work done on the development of the christian tradition, especially of the gospels within themselves and from one to another. If you're interested you could read some of that material.

The help that you can give is to yourself: Once you have a tradition, whether it is as you claim of a real figure or of a non-real figure considered real, it is the same process that follows.

No, I was trying to find something you might understand.

I understand that you cannot conceive of this notion, but his reality is irrelevant. It is sufficient that Paul believed that he was real, that he existed and died.

As I have said, numerous times, Paul tells us he never met Jesus and that he never got his gospel information from other people.

He may have, but no-one seems to have any way of verifying the claim.

This didn't answer the question.

What you are "looking for" seems to be someone who will agree with you that there is a historical core to the gospel religion.

Now, please answer the question you didn't answer

For the umpteenth time, I don't need to believe anything in the matter to think other than a hypothesis is at least as functional, if not more functional, than another.

I don't care if you believe that there was a historical core to the gospel religion. I'm interested in what evidence you have for the claim. And you obviously have nothing whatsoever. You don't even seem to know what evidence is in the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin That revelation was what he thought was a message from god telling him about Jesus and his salvific act. Paul believed the revelation as reflective of events from the real world.

I'm not playing dumb. I'm trying to get facts out of you, facts that have been wanting for months. You refuse to provide evidence for your views. Should one conclude that your views are not based on any evidence?

What material???

I have explained the hypothesis that Paul started christianity more times than is reasonable. You go round and around and around and around saying nothing.

You are simply confusing yourself by not following the argument through the different posts, so I've straightened the conversation out a bit for you above.

You wanted to know what the good news was and I told you. You then proceeded to conclude that the good news must have reflected reality. Doh!

If he had, but we are only dealing with Paul's belief that he had.

You cannot derive the first from the second. It's not based on what Paul says in Galatians.

The second part ("that being christian") doesn't come from the text.

This is confusion between the gospel that Paul believed and the written gospel of Mark (et al.). The tangents are your attempts to go off about Mark and Matthew. Paul's gospel, ie what he says he received from his revelation and taught his converts is the issue.

A supposed historical core that he didn't hear about to preach his religion.

These are two separate issues. Word choice makes you either understandable or not understandable. I'm sure you can appreciate that you'd like to be understood.

Brevity of explanations is not a problem unless there is not enough in the explanation for the reader to make sense of the explanation. Other people in this thread have shown that they understand. The issue therefore is not with the explanation, but with your reading of them.

Answer my question. I have answered yours in various ways without your brain waves murmuring and I was trying to answer it in a different way when I asked this question.

Doh!

This still seems to be a tangent. I have indicated that he had a number of groups of converts in Galatia, in Thessalonia, in Corinth, in Philippi, and apparently elsewhere. Why are you so interested in the number of converts. Do you also want their names and addresses?

Your lack of perception and understanding is admirable.


spin

dog-on

It is irrelevant whether Paul thought Jesus was real or not, simply because he tells us how he "discovered" Jesus. The mechanic of which is clearly, through the scriptures and by a "revelation".

There is no evidence by which to either corroborate or falsify his claim.

Revelation from God is improbable.

However you slice this, the bottom line is that he made it up. You can add whatever motivations or causes you might like, but they would only be speculation.


I am making no accusations. I am simply taking Paul at his word.

I do completely discount any possibility of a revelation from God, as a matter of course...

Dreams, mental breaks, etc... are just other ways that people fabricate (make up) events...

Still made up, bottom line.

Elijah

I wouldn’t say you have been clear with your interpretation and you haven’t supported it at all in any way.
Who is Jesus in his revelation and what is his nature? Is he preaching about a real man you just think he was wrong about his existence or a spiritual entity? Where do you get that was Paul’s gospel from?
So you don’t really know what their beliefs are and have no way of demonstrating that they are somehow a comparable example to what you are suggesting.
Back to the evidence game again and pretending like you don’t know where I get my version from, huh? Beyond a lack of undisputable evidence do you see any reason to not believe a historical core is possible? Is there some reason you have a problem imagining a historical core to the concept of Jesus?
No they won’t disappear sorry. Showing me that your interpretation of his revelation is correct or at least possible will help though.
I don’t know anything about the creator of your theory or how the story spread and was mistaken to be about a historical figure. I don’t know when you consider the history to actually begin and where the martyrs start. “There was a guy named Paul who had a vision and it was confused for history” but you don’t have any details on how it happened.
If I have reached the limit of your ability to explain yourself then that is understandable.
Well if he is preaching Jesus came then how do you know he didn’t? Can you demonstrate that the revelation wasn’t about someone already known? No, you can’t.
So “in Christ” here means messianists and he isn’t using Christ to mean Jesus Christ but just a general messiah worship… and why is Paul persecuting them?


I think Paul knew it was a revelation/vision, now it may have been of a real person. If Paul made a mistake about the origin of preexisting Christians then your Ebion theory would be called for but you may want to start looking for a vision someone has that everyone else thinks was real and builds a history around.
Zealous for the traditions doesn’t mean he was a conservative.
It would be highly strange for him to go from speaking on behalf of a specific Christ to speak of a general Christ in that instance. And since the faith he is now speaking on behalf of is a specific Christ then it’s logical to assume that the “Christ” they are “in” is as well.

I guess it has something to do with your word specific thing that if someone says Jesus then Christ or Lord you think they are talking about different things.
Who were they apostles of? Who was the “Lord”?
So no evidence what- so-ever that they weren’t Christians, just a little speculation game you like to play.
Yea but your example doesn’t clarify if the revelation was about a preexisting person.
That’s it; pass the buck.
No, it’s not, sorry. You could try to illustrate that it is but then you could just as easily illustrate your theory to begin with.
So you have no problem understanding how legend can be attached to a historical core? Then why choose a revelation theory that makes little sense and has to be based off a passage of scripture you’re interpreting your own way completely out of the normal context?
Well if he believed that he was real then you need a reason to say that he wasn’t correct other then he didn’t know the guy because saying he got his “gospel” from revelation doesn’t cut it.
So to you gospel doesn’t mean specific good news it means a whole set of beliefs involved?
So basically you are saying that there may have been a historical core but we don’t have the evidence. So your revelation/myth theory includes a possible historical core?
I don’t think I need to look for someone who agrees with me. I don’t think I’m the only person in the room that believes in a historical core.

I’m asking about the nature of the revelation in order to understand how it was mistaken for being historical.
If you aren’t even capable of imaging a possible scenario which explains your hypothesis then I’m going to have a hard time considering it. Paul had a vision and it was confused for a real guy is too vague to consider. You have no data to support your theory. No names, dates, places, evolution of ideas. It is void of anything but a basic concept that people can make mistakes around religious ideas and Paul saying he had a revelation about Jesus.
We’re not playing the evidence game right now. We already did that. We are comparing hypothesis. If you see anything that you have a hard time accepting then let me know as I am pointing out the areas that don’t make sense to me about your theory. Give me the body of Jesus so I don’t have to explain my theory doesn’t work.
Yes it is a merry go round where nothing is said. Maybe you should ask me about what I believe and see if you can see any logical errors. (Without going give me evidence from 2000 years ago.)
No I’m wondering if to you the good news was about someone supposedly dying in reality how do you conclude it wasn’t. Do you think Paul had a vision of someone who he thought existed but just ignored seeking out his followers or witnesses of his death?

And you’re not sure that Jesus didn’t’ really exist right?
There are still indications that he did regardless of your dismissal of the texts or creative interpretations.
What would you classify Paul as at this time then? Is he not the first Christian? If not who then?
I still don’t know what you are basing your opinion on what Paul’s “gospel” was.
He doesn’t need to hear much if his religion is just Christ crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2
No I don’t take Genesis literally.
I ask about his converts because I’m trying to figure out the nature of this movement you are describing to better understand your theory.

I would like the same evidence of the people involved in your theory you expect of the son of a carpenter. Unfortunately your theory consists of Paul alone so far.

spin

I agree with the mechanism.

Making things up is an allegation of intent to fabricate.

As I tried to get into Elijah's head, it doesn't matter what the revelation is. It simply doesn't.

We must disagree. It seems to me that you build error into your statements when you use terms like "make up".


spin

spin

But then you've given no evidence that you've cleaned your glasses in the last few decades.

Jesus is the individual who he believes sacrificed himself in order to redeem sinners. Paul believes Jesus is the son of god. (My views are irrelevant to the hypothesis. I'm working from what Paul says.)

There is no way for you to know the nature of Jesus, so it is irrelevant.

If you want to think that, you must understand that you would be ignorant.

This is a poor trick. If you cannot supply tangible evidence then you have none. With your track record of never supplying evidence. My belief is that you are incapable of doing so.

What is possible is not sufficient for anything useful. It is possible that the world has been watched by aliens for thousands of years. That possibility is however totally useless.

I can imagine all the hypotheses on the subject I've heard.

No-one can show you that your pet theory isn't the only one.

And you have resolutely refused to think otherwise.

I can offer you comprehesion lessons at a fee.

I never ever claimed he didn't. I only pointed out that whether he did or not is totally irrelevant to Paul preaching his gospel. Paul didn't know him or hear about him. If Jesus lived, it is to Paul as if he hadn't.

Stop here. Think about it.

Paul's knowledge of Jesus didn't come from anyone before him. It came from a revelation.

(I doubt if you'd believe that that revelation was a message from god about Jesus, but it doesn't really matter. I personally doubt that it was.)

If Paul's knowledge came from no-one before him, though there was a real Jesus, that Jesus was beyond Paul's knowledge and is totally irrelevant to Paul because it was as if he hadn't existed because Paul knew nothing about him.

Here you have to tell me, what knowledge did Paul have of real world Jesus?

Paul specifically states that the content of his gospel was not given to him by anyone. Assume for a moment Jesus existed. How did that existence affect the thinking of Paul regarding his new religious views

Messianists were not traditional Jews and Paul was zealous for the traditions of his fathers.

I gather you mean that the content of the revelation may have been about a real person. If so, I've already indicated that Paul didn't learn about Jesus from any other person. So any prior Jesus knowledge is irrelevant to Paul and his religion.

Ebion is about how non-real can become seen as real.

Being conservative means maintaining existing traditions. Paul was a radical conservative.

Which specific christ did he speak on behalf of before he spoke of which general christ?

Sorry, not much of the last few sentences parses well.

Paul attacked messianists, suffered a change of heart, developed a belief in messianism which was highly individual and almost nothing to do with any existent Jewish notion of messianism.

If that's your guess then its lack of linguistic coherence says a lot for your guesswork.

The term "Lord" in Paul is highly problematic because it seems to indiscriminantly refer to god and to Jesus (clearly to Jesus at least in 1 Cor). A writer usually assumes that a reader can understand what is being written so they don't use terms in such a way as to render their significance unclear, which would be the case if the reader was unable to know whether Paul was referring to god or to Jesus when he used the term kurios. When it is used to refer to Jesus I would argue that it is a marker of interpolation.

Apostles were speakers for religious positions. The ones that came before Paul in his tradition were of Jewish messianism.

The onus is on those who propose that there were to demonstrate that there were. I can happily continue without them until such time, as their influence to Paul's religion is irrelevant. (Hint, if you want to talk about christians before Paul, you need to demonstrate that there were. You've demonstrated diddley squat so far.)

Paul specifically says that his information came not from any human source, so if there was a pre-existing person has no impact whatsoever on Paul and his religion.

Would you like a few specific references?

Pure denial is an inadequate response.

Do you think that Santa Claus was a real figure? If not, how did he get to have a home in Lapland? If you don't like Santa Claus, what about Paul Bunyan? Would you disagree that traditions developed over years regarding this non-real figure?

I'm sure you know of non-real events attributed to real people. Heard of the Gordian Knot and how Alexander untangled it? Hear about the fact that Sargon of Akkad was fished out of the water in a basket as a baby? Washington's apple tree?

It is very hard to disagree with the notion that a traditionized figure gets developmental accretions. It doesn't matter if they are real or not. Once they are aborbed into tradition the tradition develops.

You are assuming your conclusion. If you want to deal with a historical core, demonstrate it, not assume it. I don't need it. Paul didn't need it. You for some reason do. Show that it isn't a load of horse droppings.

I already given you a reason. He didn't get his information about the real world directly from the real world. He got it in a revelation.

Gospel meaning good news is tautological.

It says that such a notion is irrelevant to Paul's gospel.

You have avided answer the question twice. Here it is again:

What do you think the nature of his revelation can tell you that is relevant about the fact that after it he had knowledge about Jesus and his role in salvation though before it he didn't?

You have the opportunity not to make it three times in a row that you refuse to answer.

The question doesn't make sense. The revelation was not something experienced by any other person, so there is simply no way to verify or validify or in fact to falsify, it. You are wasting your breath with this useless line of thought. We have the fact that he gained knowledge about Jesus, but gained it specifically not from any other person. Please stop the stupid questions about the nature of the revelation. You can achieve nothing useful doing so. It is merely a non-real-world means of gaining his knowledge of Jesus.

We are not here to "imagine" anything. We argue based on the available facts. If you don't like that, you are wasting everyone's time.

Please get it right: Paul had a vision which he perceived contained information about the real world. Your persistent error here is wasting time.

Paul specifically states the evidence I use. You merely want to ignore it.

What names do you need given the fact that he says that he received information not from any other human being? Your request is unreasonable. Places? What is important about the place of his revelation to the fact that the revelation was the immediate cause of his change of views? Dates? How will they change his statements? Evolution of ideas would be interesting, but he doesn't supply any information about it, so once again you are requesting information which simply isn't available and which won't change the hypothesis.

You aren't saying anything tangible here. If a hypothesis is capable of explaining the evidence that other hyotheses can, then it is as valid as the others.

You never play the evidence game. You are singularly wanting in anything vaguely classifiable as evidence.

Where? I didn't see one scrap of substantive evidence for your waffly "historical core".

No we aren't. You are not forthcoming abuot your hypothesis so how can one compare it with anything?

Plausibility is not a sufficient condition for a hypothesis. You need more meaningful criteria.

You are working on the notion that plausibility is anything more than a starting criterion. If a hypothesis is not plausible it doesn't even get considered. You need more than something that is plausible. It needs to explain evidence. How does your historical core theory explain that Paul didn't need a historical core?

??

Where did Paul get the information? If you can answer that without contradicting Paul, I'd be interested to know. (And as I have said, I don't need to claim that Jesus wasn't real: it is irrelevant to the hypothesis.)

Can you see any evidence in Paul either way?

No-one (least of all you) has any tangible evidence on the matter.

You aren't on the subject. We are dealing with your unsupported claim that Paul heard of Jesus from the people he says he persecuted in Galatians.

Paul was an initiator, if not the sole initiator, of a religion based on Jesus that would come to be known as christianity. There is no need for any other initiators given his claims in Galatians. If the claims are veracious the hypothesized initiators would have been irrelevant.

He explains his personal gospel throughout Galatians. It's what he contrasts with the beliefs of those he is in conflict with. See for examples Gal 2:18-20 or 3:10-14, etc.

He preached more than christ crucified and I've just supplied a few examples of what his views were.

He wrote a few more verses than that.

But although you don't take Genesis literally, do you see that it is essential to the notion of the sabbath that the world was seen to have been created in six days so that god could set an example by resting on the seventh day? It had to be an ordinary day for the coherence of the religious idea. Jews had to believe that it was a real ordinary day, otherwise the sabbath connection would fail.

Here is the issue: the internal rationale of the belief must be considered in order to understand it, despite the relationship of that belief to the real world. The fact that an idea is essential for a religious belief in no way qualifies the idea as a reflection of the real world. Is it simply a case of belief that you are bulletproof in order to stave off bullets?

Paul believed that Jesus died in the real world. A real death was a necessary notion to the religious hope for redemption. This doesn't make the death of Jesus a real event.

And nothing else is necessary other than his testimony. He is the earliest evidence we have. He claims that he got his religious outlook from a revelation from god about Jesus and his salvific act.


spin

spin

My interest isn't in contradictions, but in signs of traditions. Often there is no way to extract any history from traditions without solid historical indicators outside the tradition for the history.

This is the notion I also explained above regarding traditions. There is an epistemological problem in extracting history from traditions. Elijah cannot confront his epistemological issues so his claims of a historical core are meaningless.

Again this is basically the opinion I have put forward to Elijah, though I don't talk about "myth to history", but more neutrally "non-real" to "real". (A myth is fundamentally a religious notion which needs no connection to this real world. Paul connects his Jesus to the real world, so I can't consider his view of Jesus as mythical.)


spin

aa5874

The writer called Paul, the very writer who claimed he had revelations from Jesus Christ also wrote that there were apostles before him.

The writer called Paul who claimed he had revelations from Jesus Christ also wrote there were churches in Christ that were before his conversion.

The writer called Paul who claimed he had revelations from Jesus Christ wrote that he persecuted the faith that he now preached.

The author of Acts of the Apostles is also consistent with the writer called Paul. The author of Acts of the Apostles has a chronology of Saul/Paul that describes the writer as a persecutor of Jesus believers, later converted and then preaching his gospel after the apostles, including Peter, were filled with Holy Ghost and were already preaching the gospel of Jesus.


Eusebius in Church History placed the letter writer called Paul with a character called Luke. The character called Luke, according to church writers wrote the gospel called Luke and the book called Acts of the Apostles.

So, Eusebius puts the writer called Paul and the writer called Luke together.

Now, this is extremely important, Eusebius and other church writers put the writer called Luke in the company of the writer called Paul.

A very critical clue, the writer called Paul and the writer called Luke knew each other. And Luke wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

When was gLuke actually written?

When was Acts of the Apostles actually written?

Another vital point, the letters from the writer called Paul, do indeed contain information found only in gLuke and Acts.

This finding is therefore consistent with Eusebius that the writer called Paul was aware of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

Church History 3.4.7 [Church History 3.4.8. So, once it can be found when gluke and Acts of the Apostles were written, it is likely we can find when the letter writer called Paul was alive.

Col 4:14 - If you find the writer called Luke or when he wrote gLuke and Acts, it is likely you will find the letter writer called Paul.

dog-on

Just to be clear, though you may disagree, I mean no particularly negative connotation using the term "made up".

Amaleq13

No, that involves the false assumption that one of the theories must be correct. This is simplistic and illogical.

You've got a log in your eye. You might want to take care of it before pointing out the splinters in someone else's.

You quite clearly have a personal preference and a strong desire to keep it. To suggest otherwise is only fooling yourself, if that.

Explain exactly how they are not sufficiently similar rather than simply declare it. That is how a discussion is conducted. But you want your opponent to do all the work while you lay back and play lazy defense (ie shifting the burden).

And at least pretend you've been paying attention by avoiding terminology you have been explicitly and repeatedly informed is inaccurate with regard to spin (ie "myth").

You only have one theory in your mind and you've made it pretty clear that is there is no room for more. Others are clearly viable when one takes a serious look at the state of the evidence. Actually, you appear to also have only one competing theory in mind and no interest in understanding the basis of anything more nuanced.

You really don't have a theory which can explain the data any better than any other. You just have a theory you like better than mythicism.

Yes, that is what I said to correct your earlier statement. I'm glad you now agree and will not repeat the error.

Amaleq13

Why doubt his "estimation"?

What would be the point of claiming they shared his beliefs if they didn't? Wouldn't everyone know he was preaching something nobody had ever preached before him?

That doesn't appear to be an accurate summary. He claims to be compelled to go by a revelation so that he can make sure he hasn't been wasting his time preaching his gospel (not that he has the "true gospel") and claims that they added nothing to what he taught.

Why do you think he went to this specific group of devout Jews with his executed messiah and an expectation of acceptance? Why does he need their approval and why does he think they'll give it to an idea that would be considered utterly absurd by devout Jews?

If they rejected the fundamental basis of Paul's gospel, why do we not find this in his letters? Why, instead, is the focus on whether his gentile converts are fully converting to Judaism?

Shouldn't we find Paul defending the fact that Jesus was crucified contrary to whatever his opponents were preaching?

Shouldn't we find Paul poking holes in his opponents' opposing claims?

But, instead, all we find is Paul defending his interpretation of the significance of Jesus' death rather than the fact of it and poking holes in their demand for full conversion rather than their criticisms of the notion a crucified messiah.

And why, in your view, did Paul claim his opponents were in fear of being persecuted for the cross (Gal 6:12)?