J-D

I don't want everything to be a fraud, but I can't see any reason not to consider the possibility that Paul was a fraud. Even on that hypothesis, it doesn't follow that the whole of the New Testament is a fraud. Nobody, not even the traditional believers' account, supposed that the whole New Testament was written by Paul. And even if parts of it were written by a fraudster, it doesn't follow that they have no evidentiary value. The Book of Mormon has evidentiary value. It's possible to draw inferences from it. For example, it was obviously written by somebody who was stylistically influenced by the King James Version. It's also obviously not what what it's supposed to be in the specific sense that it's supposed to be an abridged account and it's way too verbose for this to be plausible.

J-D

I don't know what you mean by a historical 'core' theory.

If you think there are good reasons to prefer another account of the origin of Christianity to the one I set out before, even though that other account has even less the modicum of concrete detail I referred to, I would be interested to hear those reasons.

Sheshbazzar

Ten separate questions posed within a single post? Do you really need individual answers each of these questions, or is it, as it appears to be, an attempt to employ the "Fallacy of Many Questions" tactic as a means to frustrate and discourage all views other than that one you espouse?
Would I be incorrect to assume, given previous examples, that any replies that I might offer to these many questions, will only provide fodder for your next round of many questions, ad infinitum?
I refuse to be forced to "write a book" in Forum, in attempt to defend and justify my every thought.
I am aware that the next tactic of those who employ the FOMQ is to accuse the one who refuses to "play the game" and reply to each question, with being guilty of "Dodging The Question(s)".
So -this time- I'll briefly answer these questions.

1. Almost all of the accounts of things that Paul allegedly did are accountable as humanly plausible, and well within the realm of the natural world, whereas the accounts of what "Jesus" did are not plausible, and are way outside of the natural worlds observed processes.
Paul is presented as a natural human being (albeit of somewhat abnormal mind), and hence believable as being historical. Whereas "Jesus" who is presented as being a super-natural being, possessing and employing supernatural powers, even a "God" one "eternal", who come down from "heaven", Thus "Jesus" was/is NOT plausibly human, is quite outside of, and alien to all the normal and natural limitations of humanity, thus is implausible as being "historical".
Therefore, while it is reasonable to accept Paul as being a "historical" personage. A "Jesus", who was/is only identifiable by and through his supernatural "God" qualities leaves no plausible or reasonable evidence of ever having had any "historical" existence.

This is not simply a matter of stripping "Jesus" of all The NTs supernatural elements, as unlike true "historical" personages, His entire existence, and the entire NT narrative are integral with, and totally dependent upon his supernatural abilities and claims, take away every vistage of these, and there is essentially nothing left to identify as a person of any "history" at all.

2. As the person being discussed was Saul of Tarsus, it would be Saul's aka Paul's life story, as much as it is revealed within NT writings.

3. You have The Book and are able to find out as much concerning the life of Paul, as I or any other person.
To save space and time, I'll not quote all of the relevant verses here.
Whether you accept all of what your Book has to say about Paul's life is entirely up to you.

4.Of course it includes his "vision" on the road to Damascus, But No, it doesn't count for much as being very "extraordinary", as other than a claim, of "hearing a voice" there was nothing much that was at all supernatural or extraordinary about the event, other than the claim (latter made), that his traveling companions also "saw a light". But what he evidently was "seeing" and "hearing" was something that was within his own head. And as related, consisted of very little, and appears to have grown with time and telling, as most such tales do.
Every day, there are those who have seizures, and "near death experiences" and there have been tens of thousands who have claimed to have had "visions" and who also have "heard" heavenly voices. I have had aquaintances, and even close family members who have made similar claims.
Saul wasn't the first, and he sure as hell wasn't the last to make such a claim, and a good many of these others also made dramatic changes in their lives following such experiences. So No, its not so "extrordinary" at all.
When it comes down to it, in Paul's case, it serves as an impressive and convenient "story" to explain his sudden dramatic "change of heart", one that would "sell" well to the religiously credulous, "God showed me the error of my ways, and changed me", sounds so much better and convincing than a simple "I changed my mind"

5. Your "alternative account" consists first of striping the Biblical "Jesus" of virtually every attribute and claim that makes up the Biblical "Jesus", and then positing the existence of an entirely different and totally unknown "Jesus" as being "historical", yet he would have NO historical record, nothing more remaining than an anonymous peg on which to hang your theory.
Whereas my theory goes well back into the religious/historical records of the beliefs and actions of the Jewish people, accounting for how, where, and when the pre-christian Messianic movement naturally came to employ The Watchword as the particular NAME ("which is above every name") for their hoped for Messiah and Deliverer;
"The Help of the Lord".
Moreover it does not require rejecting the miraculous stories as being an integral part of the NT narrative, as once the Watchword became the acknowledged Name of the Messiah, and The Shibboleth par excellence, it was only natural that all that was esteemed by the devoutly faithful as being "good", "worthy" and "Holy" would attach to It.
This also frees the NT narrative of the charge of being the work of willful "fabricators" and "liars", as the stories and sayings were already present and were only finally coalesced around a Name of a Messianic Figurehead, One that was fiercely believed in and held sacred.


In a similar American idiom, tens of thousands have believed in and laid down their lives in the service of, and in the defense of Uncle Sam.
"The Help of the Lord" (a translation of the "saving name" and "watchword") was the Holy Watchword of Israel, from the beginning a phrase under which to unite in opposition to all enemies, and for which the patriotic and true children of Israel would willingly give their lives.

spin

Modern analogies aren't useful.

You mightn't want Paul to be a fraud, but you come to that notion after being confronted with what he actually said and apparently finding no other way forward so you contemplate fraud (you do -- not so infrequently -- try such wabbits for want of anything more reasonable). However, arguing fraud regarding Paul you would argue yourself into silence. It is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. If you want to walk that maze, when you can think of some way out let me know.


spin

J-D

I assume that that is a rhetorical question, but if it matters, I confirm your tally.Asking a lot of questions does not constitute the 'Fallacy of Many Questions'. What you have just done, however, does. Your question presupposes that one of the two stated alternatives must be the case. In fact, neither is. I don't need individual answers to each of those questions, and I'm not trying to frustrate and discourage other views, but rather to elucidate them.Yes, you would be incorrect to assume that. In this post I will ask no questions at all.I'm not forcing you to do anything. I'm not even asking you to defend and justify your every thought. I'm only asking the things I want to know, and I assume that if you don't want to tell me, you won't.Your posturing does not impress me.As I pointed out in my earlier post, there are people who indisputably had a real historical existence but about whom supernatural stories are told. On the other hand, I gave two examples of Biblical figures about whom no supernatural stories are told to illustrate that not having supernatural stories told about people is not enough reason to think that they really existed. I'll give you another example: no supernatural stories are told about James Bond. That is not sufficient reason to think he really existed. Similarly, I don't think that the absence of supernatural stories about Paul, by itself, is sufficient reason to think that he really existed.I deny this. It seems to me that you are attempting to exclude possibilities without sufficient reason.The hypothesis explains the data which are there to be explained without violating the bounds of what's possible. I see no reason to require anything else of it.If your theory does that, you have not yet set out that part of your theory here.You say this as if it were a positive merit. I see no reason to exclude the possibility that the NT narrative does incorporate some elements which are deliberate fabrications. It is not a necessary part of my purpose to 'free' it of this 'charge', and I don't see why it should be.

J-D

I don't see how not.I don't see why arguing that Paul is a fraud would argue me into silence. As a matter of fact, however, I haven't argued that Paul is a fraud. I've only said that I can't see any reason to exclude the possibility.

On the other hand, if we accept Paul's account as true, then on his own say-so it is not the case that he originated Christianity, since he refers to its predating him.

spin

Naturally, but compared to the ancient context they imply a grossly different cultural/anthropological/political/experiential context, that you'll have no obvious way of circumventing.

See the bold part above. But argue away if you want: you'd just put yourself in the position of most of those you argue against.

Actually, that needs to be argued. You are probably doing more retrojection.


spin

Solo

Experiential context ? Like what: having a headache ? Getting one's face slapped ? Having microseizures in the temporal lobe, making ordinary things seem profound and cosmic wisdom gushing in torrents from some strangely present source ?

Would those feel any different in humans living in Asia Minor 1st century CE, from those say in Sausalito, Cal. in 2008 ?

Jiri

J-D

Any analogy is always between things which are similar in some respects and different in other respects. If you deny the usefulness of analogies between things which have some differences between them, then you deny the usefulness of all analogies whatsoever. I consider that analogies are sometimes useful. I will accept that this particular analogy is not useful in this particular context if I am given sufficient particular reasons to do so, but I find your general argument worthless.At no point did I assert that Paul was a fraud. I only suggested that it's a possibility. Despite what you say, this assertion is not only verifiable but verified: it's possible for any person to be a fraud. It's possible that I'm a fraud. It's possible that you're a fraud.

If my position relied on Paul's being a fraud, then it would be reasonable to expect me to come up with some reason for supposing that Paul's fraudulence is more than just a possibility. But my position does not rely on Paul's being a fraud.No, I'm just reading Galatians 1:13-24 and 2:7-9, especially 1:13, 1:17, and 1:23. The clearest single verse is 1:23, in which Paul says that the faith he preaches is one which he formerly persecuted, which is only possible if the religion existed before he adopted it.

spin

Copernicus. Industrial revolution and its effects. Medicine. Speeding tickets. Seeing moving pictures in a box. At 6:30 it's the Vietnam War. Elvis Presley. Entertainment about serial killers. World cup football. Newton. Edison. Freud. Einstein. Oprah. John Wayne watching the sun set over the Vietnam sea -- which was east of Vietnam. "Read my lips." "Mission accomplished." Jim Baekker. Jim Jones. Jimmy Carter. The Wall Street Crash. Twelve years of institutional education. And a host of other things which have become part of our experiential world.


spin