Chili

That migh tbe true, and I agree that it is a game that they play, but they do it for you and not for themselves.

It so happens to be that the mythology exists only for the well being of the tribe like a queen bee is for its own and we still call her Mary today.

aa5874

Your statement is not logical.

If there is no actual evidence for Jesus of the NT-- no credible writings, no artifacts, no archaeological findings--just 2nd century or later Myth Fables then it can be argued that Jesus was NOT a figure of history.

That is EXACTLY what has happened.

All we have about Jesus are massive fraud and forgeries and NT manuscripts of Myth Fables dated from the 2nd century or later.

That is EXACTLY what I expected.

That is EXACTLY what I expected when Jesus was NOT a figure of history.

Toto

The epistles presumably reflect the beliefs of the person who wrote or edited them.

But if they are later creations, they are of even less use in showing the existence of a historical Jesus.

Historicists need the epistles more than mythicists at this point.

maryhelena

It's the claim of some mythicists that the Pauline epistles support their proposition that the Pauline cosmic JC was historicized as the gospel JC. That proposition is unwarranted. Why? Apart from this proposition being illogical - it's basis on the shaky Pauline platform gives it no 'authority'. i.e. it can't remove itself from its contaminated source.

This illogical proposition, upheld by some mythicists, does not give the JC historicists 'victory' by default. All it does is suggest that it is high time some mythicists went back to the drawing board and checked their premises. Continually banging their heads against the JC historicists with an argument based upon the shaky Pauline epistles is one big waste of time...

The jump that some mythicists want to make - from a Pauline cosmic JC to a historicized gospel JC - cannot be made. Even if, for the sake of argument, that gospel story was written 500 years after the Pauline epistles - it does not logically follow that the gospel story is a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC. The gospel story stands on it's own two feet. It does not need the Pauline epistles. Pauline theology/spirituality/philosophy is an outcome, a development, of that gospel story - it is not that's story's generator.

Yes, the arguments of the JC historicists are easy pickings for the mythicists - but that does not give 'victory' to the illogical proposition that some mythicists are supporting.

It's those mythicists who uphold the proposition that the Pauline cosmic JC is historicized as the gospel JC, that are more at risk with Pauline arguments that demonstrate the shaky platform of the epistles. The JC historicists always have their fall back position - the gospel JC story...

Duvduv

If the emerging church had not yet finalized the storyline of their JC when they first added their emerging beliefs to preexisting letters, then it is no surprise that the epistles do not reflect the larger HJ story. They didn't have to reinvent the wheel at all when adopting some preexisting monotheistic friendly writings, adapting them with a few JC references, most often within parenthetical phrases before the full HJ storyline had yet emerged.

aa5874

Surely, Doherty needs Early Pauline writings for his Sub-lunar crucifixion of the heavenly Jesus.

Anyone who examines the Pauline writings will easily detect that they are of ZERO use for an historical Jesus whether they are authentic or not.

The Pauline writer did NOT ever state that he saw Jesus alive and admitted that his Jesus was Revealed to him AFTER consulting with entities WITHOUT Flesh and WITHOUT Blood.

Galatians 1 Whether the Pauline writings were composed in the 1st or 4th century the Pauline Jesus was a Revelation from Mythological creatures.

Duvduv

I was simply making the point that the mythist argument from the epistles only works as long as one takes the letters at face value as seamless individual letters (albeit with a few "interpolations"), but that if they are NOT taken at face value, and were in fact cut and paste composites performed during the EMERGENCE of the HJ religion but before the gospel stories were finalized, then the epistles are useless for the mythist argument.

Toto

How does this follow? They are still an indication of the state of belief at some point in early Christianity.

Chili

Paul validates it by fullfilling the promise made where 'in this age' the son of man will return (or how does that go). In other words, the price is paid for and heaven on earth will begin now with Chist replacing the God of Abraham and so forth, in Christendom here now on earth.

= no more prophetic hawking, gawking and squacking , but presence in being one with the father on earth, for which John showed us how.

Presence, is what Paul was about, and please understand that the Gosples create the [required preceding] 'essence of existence' so that Paul can be the manifestation of the promise made in gJohn, of which Luke gives us the required metaphysics to be.

aa5874

You seem not to understand the meaning of the term "Historical Jesus".

The Gospels do NOT present an Historical Jesus but a Jesus that was the Son of God--born of a Ghost and who acted as one with the characreristics of Ghost hence the Quest for an Historical Jesus.

May I remind you that the Holy Ghost and the Devil are NOT considered figures of history merely because it is so stated in the Gospels.

The recovered and dated form of the Gospels and the Pauline writings corroborate an EMERGING Myth called Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost, sometime in the 2nd century.