spamandham

If this verse is referring to material wealth (which I doubt), it would not support the idea that Jesus was a peasant. It would instead support the idea that he was an ascetic from a wealthy and powerful family.

(a high priest's son perhaps?)

Doug Shaver

Cartoon? That would be aa5874's theory. Please don't suppose that my thinking is anything like his.

OK, if you assume Jesus' historicity, then you can use that assumption to justify your interpretation of Paul's writings. But you cannot then use that interpretation to argue for Jesus' historicity.

Paul himself doesn't say so.

So says church tradition. There is no good historical evidence that anybody personally acquainted with Jesus was martyred.

Doug Shaver

OK, we agree up to that point. We obviously disagree about the nature of that mistake, though.

You have not explained yet, in terms I can understand, why it would be such a dangerous mistake if it is a mistake.

spamandham

I told you the reasons I don't accept it, and you have not rebutted them, but prefer to simply exit the discussion neither able to support your position, nor willing to consider its flaws.

My position is merely that there isn't enough information to conclude whether or not there is a historical core to Jesus. But if there is, it isn't going to be found by stripping the magic out of legendary stories and declaring what's left to be historical, just like stripping the impossible out of Santa stories would not yield the historical St. Nick. When fantasy is added to legend, portions of that fantasy are always plausible,but that doesn't make the plausible portions historical.

Doug Shaver

In other words, no, you can't.

Doug Shaver

Just because you wrote it doesn't mean it's so.

To my knowledge, nobody, but nobody, who denies Shakespeare's authorship of the Shakespearean plays questions either the historical existence of William Shakespeare or his involvement in the London theater business during the time that the plays were written and originally performed. That is because the evidence for his existence is generally considered incontrovertible, or as close to it as doesn't matter. The allegation is that the actual author of the plays was a contemporary of Shakespeare who simply used his name. Nobody suggests that the actual author simply imagined a playwright by the name of William Shakespeare and put that name on the plays.

There is no relevant analogue there to the question of Jesus' historicity. In the JM scenario, there is no identifiable Galilean preacher whose name might have become associated with Christianity. Mythicists believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a product of the gospel authors' imagination. Any resemblance between him and any actual Galilean preacher of the early first century would be purely coincidental, because the gospel authors had no such preacher in their minds when they wrote their stories.

Elijah

I certainly don’t want to make assumptions on your beliefs, so please explain to me how Paul saw Jesus as a God, rationally
Probability and no evidence of any other scenario being played out is why I believe in a historical core to Jesus. The competing theories are incomplete, unsupported and just wishful thinking of skeptics. IMO
So? Just follow the story. When did Saul’s conversion take place?
Nope but no reason to expect the kind of historical evidence you deem necessary in order to believe to exist. To me every skeptic asking on here is just wasting time and copping out of actually showing at least a comprehensive theory on how they think the Jesus phenomenon got going.

Work with the information you have available and don’t waste both of our time asking for evidence that should not exist.

P.S. I was curious to the answer on Plato vs Aristotle on the eternalness of a triangle. Did I miss your answer on that?

Elijah

I don't see your reasons as reasonable. Tracking? You have offered up zippo in support of a mythological origin and your disregard of scripture from the time is equally as unimpressive. If you have zero evidence to support your position and you won't recognize any scripture, which is the only text we have of him from around the time then what is the point of us continuing this conversation? You believe what ever you want to believe.

Without enough information I'll go with the most likely scenario. You go with whatever method you think is going to bring you closer to the truth.

Elijah

And again. It's your understanding of the words in discussion that is debatable.

Amaleq13

Paul, primarily, with Acts supporting the conclusion.

Where do you find anything suggesting that Jesus' original followers started a new religion?