JoeWallack

JW:
Ask and answered. Not that it's needed to doubt that Paul's competition did not believe in the crucifixion but Galatians does exactly that (evidence that Paul's opponents disputed Paul's assertion of crucifixion).

When Paul confesses to us that the Galatians are rejecting his previous presentation of Jesus as crucified I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation that is consistent with the position that Paul's assertion was literal and the Galatians, after hearing from Paul's opponents, rejected the interpretation of belief in a crucified Messiah being key to salvation, after initially accepting the idea.

The simple explanation is that the Galatians were told by Paul's opponents that Jesus was not crucified. But again, why would the Galatians initially accept the idea of a crucified Messiah as theologically key and than reject the idea if they believed all along that Jesus was literally crucified? Someone, anyone, Bueller?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Elijah

That’s it, another pitiful insult instead of supporting your position.
Do you think he was thought of as natural or supernatural and we’ll go from there? By “son of god” do you mean messiah or do you mean like in a supernatural pagan way?
No ignorant would be trying to use an example you can’t support your interpretation of, be that Mithras or Paul.
The skeptic’s crutch. When all else fails ask for undeniable evidence when rationally none should be expected.
Well if you see no objections to the possibility of a historical core and can’t present a sound theory which explains a non historical core why should I bother with trying to incorporate it into my world view? Is no evidence of a historical core all you have even though none should be expected?
And what is the reason that you think the revelation theory is more likely? Please don’t ref the same passage again, you need more than that.
No it’s the only one here that explains the phenomenon in any way that correlates with the information we have. There may be a solid myth theory out there somewhere and if not I’m sure someone will put something sound together but as of right now there isn’t enough to the theory to even consider if it is possible.
It has nothing to do with me thinking and everything to do with you presenting the information/data that explains your theory.
No idea how you are coming to this conclusion. What do you think Paul’s religious outlook on the world was? What text do you think best expresses how you think Paul viewed the world at that time? Maybe then I can see how he could understand Jesus the way you seem to be suggesting.
You haven’t shown that his existence is irrelevant at all because you haven’t shown that you can demonstrate what his gospel actually was. You haven’t shown that the vision wasn’t about someone and not creating a new person. Paul’s knowledge about Jesus being the messiah came from revelation, Paul’s knowledge of Jesus’ existence came from the fact that he was persecuting them is the rational understanding. He’s not saying that I had a vision of a spiritual messiah (or whatever you’re trying to push) but had a vision that Jesus was the Messiah.

Just him crucified as I said.
Where are you getting what the content of his revelation from?

It meant that waiting for a savior was over and a new direction was necessary.
I think it was pretty common belief. If groups of nonmessianic conservatives were going after Messianists I think there would be more record of that conflict. It seems pretty obvious they were being persecuted for something more nontraditional then simply waiting for the king of the Jews to return like everyone else.
But you haven’t demonstrated that this lack of knowledge extended to his existence and not just him being the messiah.
Hard to imagine for someone who was so radical ideologically.
Jesus Christ.
If the Christ he is in is a specific Christ (Jesus) then the churches he was persecuting were in a similar Christ. Or he would have made some note.
Did he attack a group of messianists whose leader was executed earlier?
Not only do you get to pick the texts we get to use but if the text says anything that disagrees with your theory then it must have been added later. Awesome!
"someone sent out" Who sent them out? If you don’t want to understand the word as it is generally understood as being an apostle of Jesus then who were they apostles of?
So no reason to believe that they weren’t Christians at all and you want to play the evidence game again?
It has to do with whether your pushing a historical core Jesus theory or a non historical core Jesus. So far you sound like you’re actually pushing a historical core. We should be working together.
Not at all, I was just pointing out that you couldn’t support your position on your own.
You keep looking for example to help explain what you are trying to suggest happened but what you need to do is tell me what you think happened in the situation we are discussing
There is no demonstrating it there is explaining it which you aren’t able to do for your theory. Which is why I’m sticking with historical core until someone can explain a sensible alternative.
Beyond your crazy interpretation of the passage. The fact that a guy has a vision about a man doesn’t prove the man didn’t exist.
Yea I’m trying to get the references for what you are basing what you believe his good news to be on?
How about revohistorist for a label? Since you don’t really fall into any category and there may be a historical core to your theory.
My response was “I’m asking about the nature of the revelation in order to understand how it was mistaken for being historical.”

I have no idea what kind of vision you imagine Paul preaching to the masses.
The nature of the revelation would explain how it was being preached to the masses/followers. How it was being preached to the masses would explain how it was confused for history.
You don’t have facts. You can’t prove those letters are legitimate or that Paul was a historical figure anymore then I can prove a guy on the cross 2000 years ago. We are comparing theories. My theory you seem to have no problem with and your theory is just a guy with a vision and little more.
I’m talking about the people after Paul thinking he wasn’t referring to a vision he had but of a real person he had a vision about. Because no one logically believes that someone can have a revelation of an unknown to them person that actually exists.
If the data your theory contains is one person and one passage this would be why I say the non historical core theories are vague and full of holes. Just believing what you want to believe.
I was asking about the events and people beyond/after Paul’s revelation. While you haven’t presented much of a case supporting your revelation theory you haven’t presented any case for what happened next.
If you can’t visualize a scenario that your theory plays out in because you can’t imagine enough data to fill in the blanks then it isn’t as sound as the regular historical core that you can visualize happening.
Oh I consider it lame to ask for evidence that is known not to exist just to be disruptive to the conversation. Pointless games.
So this whole time you’ve been arguing against me you don’t know what my hypothesis is? Just wanted to argue huh?
You need concrete undeniable evidence right? Crutch.
How does my theory explain that Paul believed in Jesus without ever meeting him? Well the story says he was persecuting the Christians and was involved with Stephen’s stoning in which Stephen imitated the sacrifice of the Lord. Paul being a serious religious person takes that sacrifice as a sign of conviction in Stephen’s beliefs. Paul (seems) to take this as a sign that Stephen really did see the dead rise because Paul needed an explanation for the conviction in his followers. Realizing he may have killed a follower and be persecuting the real deal he has an emotional breakdown which leads to the revelation that Jesus really was the Messiah.

Now Paul believes Jesus is the Messiah but how does he convince others of this? Well there is a few ways he can go. He can go with reason, but the reasoning behind Jesus being the actual messiah is a tough sell especially if you yourself don’t understand it that well. He can go with scripture which he does and he can go with revelation which he does also.

Now why does revelation or vision give weight to a person’s message back then is debatable but they were used as ways of convincing others of certain things. I had a vision that god wanted us to yadda yadda yadda resonates with people for some reason. And that’s all the vision stuff is, a marketing tool to help justify his faith since he didn’t have actually meeting him he had to go with what he did have.

This is also a changing of the guard somewhat. It’s one thing for somebody to convince another man like a fisherman that they are someone special, it’s another to convince a serious religious zealot who never meet the man he was the messiah. You can’t assume the story begins when the first person who can write proficiently joins up. The divide between the uneducated early apostles and the educated Paul is why they have disagreements on just what Jesus’ death meant and would have wanted.
You haven’t show the information he received wasn’t that he was the messiah but that he existed someplace sometime.
I’ll repeat. “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?”
No reason to believe that there is no historical core but you just like to argue with people I guess.
No we are dealing with your unsupported claim that Paul wasn’t persecuting the religion he later believed in, which was belief that Jesus was the Messiah.
You don’t know if there was more than one initiator? If Paul is not the first Christian then who is that we know of?
The anti-law stuff is his gospel? It doesn’t say that he received that in revelation anywhere does it? Do you have a verse where he refers to his gospel as being what you suggest it is?
Yea but when he showed up that’s all he knew so unless you have another revelation story where Jesus fills in the rest of the info then I don’t know how you are coming to the conclusion that his gospel is a whole series of beliefs. And not that his beliefs are shaped around the good news of messiah’s arrival.
Yea but you haven’t showed that everything he wrote or believed came from that revelation.
I think it’s meant to be allegorical to the stillness of god. No idea what you interpret it as.
It’s not real death there then it is a symbolic death like God symbolic rested. Are you saying the Paul is preaching a symbolic spiritual savior?
Yea we still need the evidence of the rest of your theory. You haven’t proven your interpretation of that single passage or of his gospel is correct and you haven’t begun to show that your scenario actually played out after his vision. You are crazy if you think the work is done in illustrating your theory you haven’t even started. We are still just stuck on the starting point.

Elijah

No that comes from the belief that you make the best choice available. I’m not assuming it must be correct at all, that’s your assumption of me.
And what personal preference do you think I have and why do you think that?
As I said in the post; “Are you suggesting that Paul made a mistake about the founder of the Christians he was persecuting like with Ebion?” No, then what is the similarity in the examples being provided?
I’m not talking to spin, I’m talking to you. Do you have a problem with the term myth as well and need something more specific.

Which myth theory do you think is believable?
What data needs to be explain with my theory?
I never made the error to begin with you just assumed I did.

Amaleq13

Not by Solo. Unlike those who have come before him, I hope to hear a coherent story.

Paul makes no such confession. He recalls to his Galatians what first convinced them.

There is nothing simple about the absence of evidence to support such claim when there is good reason to expect a great deal of defense to be offered if it were true.

The Galatians initially accepted Paul's interpretation of that death as freeing them from the necessity of full conversion to Judaism. Paul's opponents were apparently successful in convincing many that he was wrong and that faith in the crucified messiah was not sufficient in and of itself.

It is not about whether the messiah had been crucified but whether Paul's argument from that crucifixion was legitimate.

Amaleq13

It is a conclusion based on everything you've written since joining. You are only kidding yourself, here. If that.

Why pretend you haven't been given this over and over and over?

You never made the error you subsequently corrected?

OK :rolling:

spin

That's fine. I was also trying to be clear: making things up indicates an intention to fabricate.


spin

Solo

The Galatians and the Corinthian letters show there is gulf between his preaching and other "apostles" and missionaries like Cephas. They form factions. I believe that the 1 Cor 1:12 "is Christ divided,..was Paul crucified for you...were you baptized for Paul ?" shows that there were multiple strands of the movement and clearly Paul did not control most of them.

The content of Galatians makes it hugely improbable that the Jamesian missionaries around Cephas would have considered the crucifixion a messianic attribute, the way Paul did. They would have still believed in the apocalyptic "son of man" as Jesus preached (without the self-reference that Mark gave it later) through whom the kingdom would be inaugurated - here on earth ! Jesus was a martyr for that cause (the last days) and he would be avenged. Naturally, the Jerusalem church would hold sway over the other Palestinian congregations in elsewhere in Judea. They had no "issue" with the law, unlike Paul who taught that Christ was born under the law, and died through the law. This would have been rubbish to the Palestinian Jesus following. To them, Jesus was executed by the 'hands of lawless men' (as Peter says in Acts 2:23). God will destroy the Temple because of the outrage.

So, when Paul says that the churches are "in Christ" he means, they have people who have received the Spirit, though this does not imply that they believe what Paul believes. Best example: 1 Cor 4:15 : 'For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.'

Well I think we are at the crux of the matter. What Paul shared with the apostles, and saints, was the Spirit, which you know I believe was what today is commonly observed as manic highs. He believed and they believed that the uncanny psi phenomena (the works of the Spirit, i.e. miracles as well as "the judgment", or "the apocalypse" of the ensuing depressive psychosis) augured the end of the world as they knew it - so this was their meeting point...and then the figure of Jesus, on which all of these beliefs landed.

I am not sure what you are saying: Paul makes it clear in Galatians he, Paul, has the only "true gospel" (Gal 1:6-9, 5:10-11). He recounts his journey to Jerusalem, transparently in trying to counter rumours, that a)he received something from the James church, b) that he was subordinated to it, and c) that circumcision was obligatory for all converts. He calls the Cephas and his missionaries "hypocritical" (2:13), and "not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (2:14).

IOW, ....they are accursed liars who would compel you, foolish Galatians, to be circumcised and observe the law they themselves break when nobody looks. They do that only because they think that otherwise they would be persecuted like their crucified leader.

Hopefully, I have explained most of it above ! But on the 'executed messiah' thing: this is an assumption that people make because Paul's Jesus in time became Christ for most Jesus cult followers. But there is no special reason to believe that for the two decades immediately after his death this was a 'given' for any of the groups, except the Paulines. The Gospel of Thomas, e.g. knows nothing about Jesus as messiah. 'Q' knows nothing about Jesus as messiah. The idea of an executed and rising messiah of course would have been absurd to most messianic Jews of the time. Messiah was the one to come, to make Israel rule the world. The idea that Messiah came, was rejected and will come back to meet his flock in mid-air was just not going to fly in Judea. Why did Paul go to Jerusalem ? He says it was by revelation. You can't argue with that.

Maybe it's like the bright idea of Rudolph Hess in 1941, to parachute into Scotland to have a frank talk with the Duke of Hamilton. Surely, if he, the deputy Fuehrer, showed up in person and unarmed, the Brits would instantly overthrow Churchill and make peace with Hitler.

But, it's a central point to Paul, Doug: why do his converts need the law ? The end is near ! Love one another; there is no law against that !

Well, I don't think his opponents denied that Jesus was crucified. They just did not make that to be the earth-shattering event that Paul did. They would go, Jesus did this, and Jesus said that, and the lawless guys nailed him. So Paul devised a way to shut them up: he was preaching Christ crucified and only that !


Paul worked alone, without Jerusalem's aid. However, inside his congregations there were people who knew the ideas of the rival groups, perhaps even had access to information about the historical figure that Paul did not have. That would doubly convinced Paul that what the historical Jesus said and did was not relevant. He ended up on a cross, an accursed criminal. Paul never lost his reasoning capability; to Paul the rational man, it was clear Jesus was a fool and a lawbreaker, seen from a normal, human point of view.

But something happened to Paul . He was experiencing pronounced altered mentation which he associated with Jesus (who was his thematic obsession, as he became ill). This was his point of reference and he was targetting audience with similar profile as his - obviously attracted to the churches, to show off their personal familiarity with the Spirit, but also suffering the inevitable fallout of debilitating depressions.

At the outset, Paul probably reasoned along these lines (when he came back to normal), well if these are the sings of the "son of man" that the Jesus of Nazarenes is said to have preached, then obviously he was mad, as I was mad just a little while ago. But then, if I suffer these horrible afflictions and anxieties after my glorious epiphanies, then he suffered. He suffered a horrible death on the cross: but he broke the law. But he broke the law only because he God made him deluded. So why am I made to suffer because of him ? I was an upright Jew, doing right by God ! And if there is no meaning in this suffering, then I am doomed and I will die as he died, as a tribute to a meaningless existence. God just simply chose to destroy both of us for no reason at all !

But if, as the Nazarenes say, he was a holy man from God, then they may be right. I was wrong about the Galilean peasant sage and blasphemer that I scoffed, and God is destroying my pride by showing me that he did send him. And if God would suffer for man as a man, and go as far as taking on the likeness of what is weak and lowly in the world and agree to suffer the ultimate humiliation, then there is hope for me (and you and all who suffer). Perhaps, then my suffering is his suffering and that bliss which overcomes me in ecstasy is the promise of the everlasting glory that is Christ in heaven.

Something to that effect.

The 'denial of the cross' is very interesting in the makeup of Paul from another angle. The majority of manics will deny the ill effects of their condition and shamelessly advertize themselves as supermen to whom ordinary rules and laws (even laws of physics) do not apply. Paul (who himself abolished the Mosaic Law as a side-kick to tentmaking) was deeply offended by the license some of the high spirited members were flaunting at Corinth - "the son of man eating and drinking" that someone started and someone else was promoting. He genuinely disliked the empty-headedness and narcissism, the let's-live-it-up approach to life, which so strangely penetrated the congregations. So, the cross was a powerful argument as the persecution did not mean only persecution by external agents. (Blessed are those who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the Father. GThomas (69))

Jiri

spin

Game 5. "Explain your hypothesis." "Christianity didn't need a real Jesus if we trust what Paul says that he never met Jesus or heard of him through anyone." "Sorry, that doesn't explain your hypothesis." "What do you want?" "Something that will make your hypothesis clear to me." "Any information that may have been available prior to Paul was expressly ruled out by Paul's description of the circumstances of his revelation, ie any prior information regarding Jesus is irrelevant to Paul's religion." "But that doesn't tell me anything..." And so on and so on.

This is yet another tangent. In you want an answer, try what you glean from Paul's writings.

Paul calls Jesus the christ, ie messiah (as shown from its usage in the LXX).

You can make any uninformed guess you like. I've offered you references to your tangential requests.

You insinuate "undeniable". I asked for "tangible". That would mean something outside historically unfathomable tradition.

Did you know Pilate was gay? "[I]f you see no objections to the possibility" of Pilate's gayness, then we should incorporate it into our world view, shouldn't we?

In short you can make any cockeyed conjecture about the past you like, but without evidence it remains cockeyed.

History is a matter of what can be shown. You claim a historical core yet you are incapable of showing such a core. You do not have a historical core you have a theory that the core of the gospel story actually happened.

Occam's razor.

I'm glad you kid yourself. No-one else will.

What exactly can you show is real in the gospel literature that you consider makes up this supposed historical core. We have to know what exactly you are imagining it is in order to deal with it, yet every time you have been asked you have failed to provide any evidence. Your complete and utter failure to engage in evidence for your theory renders it a sham. It is on the level of Pilate being gay.

What is your problem with the notion that Paul tells you he didn't get his information about Jesus from any other person? If he didn't, as he claims, then any real Jesus is inconsequential to his religion based on Jesus.

Here's a task for you: show that there was information about Jesus available for Paul to lie about.

I have cited content of the gospel already, which you sadly miss most of. Read it again. It isn't just anti-law stuff but important information about Paul's gospel, what he believes Jesus did and why, what believers have to do. In short it helps you understand his religion.

Do you understand the distinction between what happened in reality and what happened in your head? You don't seem to.

Already explained. Paul is quite articulate. You refuse to rea him carefully.

Where did Paul get the information from that indicated this?

So you think that every sizable event in the past must have been recorded for posterity. Why?

Why do you think that? Is it based on your unsupported conjecture about sizable events?

Paul says god revealed Jesus to him. That's rather plain. Why don't you understand it?

Look at the period during the reign of Constantius II and the strife between the Arians and the non-Arians. That seems to have been far worse than any unorganized acts of a Paul.

Then you original statement doesn't seem comprehensible. WHo's the specific christ?

This doesn't parse.

And you've just said the general christ is Jesus, but now you're saying the specific christ is.

Really? Where do you get the indirect fact about a leader of a group of messianists who was executed earlier?

The process that I am going through is to get rid of these apologetic constraints on reading the original text.

It's just that you aren't a regular reader or one that is awake enough to see what else goes on here. There are two grammatically different usages of kurios. One as a title one (see LXX Gen 19:18) as a direct reference (LXX Gen 19:24). "The lord Jesus Christ" should obviously be seen as a title to you, while Rom 4:8 has the absolute reference.

According to Acts who sent Stephen out? Obviously for Acts, Jesus was already dead.

It seems to me that you are happy creating history rather than finding it. If you don't have evidence you don't have history. You shirk your responsibilities, because you aren't interested in history at all. You're apparently only interested in your pet theory.

Rubbish. You cannot acknowledge what Paul says, and if you can't deal fairly with evidence you cannot work with anyone who doesn't believe what you believe. Evidence speaks for itself. You either deal with it, showing it has been misapplied or you accept it.

Instead of justifying your theory you call for wider tangents to deal with other theories. Your non-argument by subterfuge will not help anyone in trying to compare your theory -- whatever it is based on -- with anything else. At the moment "historical core" seems like a mantra. It doesn't seem related to reality.

No, I keep looking for means to save you from your extended demonstration that a person can choose not to see anything if they want hard enough to be blind.

[QUOTE=Elijah;5790537]There is no demonstrating it there is explaining it which you aren’t able to do for your theory. Which is why I’m sticking with historical core until someone can explain a sensible alternative.

The development of traditions is an important issue. Christian literature is evidence of tradition development. (For example both Matthew and Luke are developments on Mark. All of them make developments on Hebrew Bible materials.)

What we see in Paul is a fairly primitive tradition (only natural if it started with him grafting his ideas onto Jewish messianism in a way disfiguring that messianism to look much more like Greek notions of saviors).

I've elicited interpretations of the relevant passages from you but your are not forthcoming. You cannot provide anything better than my "crazy interpretation".

Here's your opportunity to explain what Paul meant when he claims god revealed Jesus to him and that he got his gospel solely by revelation.

This may be true, but the fact that he says he didn't get any information about the guy, makes that supposed existence irrelevant.

No, you're not. You are avoiding the references I've given in Paul's letter to the Galatians. He says a lot about his gospel views ideas that he claims to have derived from a revelation from god. Where did he get the information he says that no person told him?

How should we really classify your pet theory when you inappropriately call it a "historical" core theory? Perhaps an "I'd like it to be historical" core theory?

Until you can deal with its nature you can't do any comparing and you are wasting your time in this thread.

The request has an inbuilt error. There is no mistake in the process that followed the revelation. Paul indicates he believed the revelation to contain veracious information.

For the fourth time, please answer the question meaningfully:

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?

Paul says in Galatians that he preached about the fact that Jesus came to the world and was crucified as a means of redemption from the consequences of not fulfilling the torah for anyone who believed in him. The redemption indicates that as Jesus was resurrected, so would his believers. He preached that salvation was available to the Gentiles.

In no sense. He had a message, a gospel, which he preached. The revelation is his claimed source for that message. For our purposes the revelation was a Mcguffin.

Nice try, but you can call the writer whatever you like. It won't change the writer's claims on which the hypothesis is based.

No we are not. You can't even get past the descriptive name of your pet.

Yea, we know: Pilate was gay. You must at least pretend to show a token concern for epistemology.

Other than based on his vision he went out and converted people to a religion which you cannot explain came into existence for Paul.

Paul indicates he believed his Jesus was a real person: god revealed him to Paul. You are not dealing with what he says. Your theory of what no one logically believes is an untested theory which doesn't seem to deal with the followers of people like David Koresh and others of that ilk before him.

To summarize: you have no meaningful response to the data except denial.

There is little historical evidence. What we have is the fact that his letters survived, indicating that his followers valued them, that when Acts was written, Paul had to be contended with and belittled before the legends of his exploits could be presented, that 1 Clement assumes Paul, that Paul is perceived as one of the earliest martyrs, indicating him being seen in the earliest part of christian tradition.

Paul himself has entered tradition as legend has developed around him, but early christians perceived of him differently from Jesus, as simply a human who did things. No miracles or indications of divinity grew around him. He was not significant in the political world. His only contacts were ordinary people from lower classes (as the emperor Julian was happy to point out), so one cannot expect preservation of materials of use to historians.

Jesus on the other hand has very different claims made for him, claims that should require a response from a wider world of his time if such a person performed such acts. While the historical silence for Paul is understandable, it certainly isn't for Jesus.

Any blanks you perceive in the theory you are arguing against are present in yours. You may be prepared to bullshit your way along, but I'd rather leave the unknown (and apparently unknowable) to the speculators.

Cute response. Your theory has nothing at all to back it up, so you try to sell it to others. What other empty theories would you like to try to sell?

You are claiming to want to compare things. You are showing you cannot, because you will not present your theory clearly. You admit that it has no evidence. No evidence usually means the theory's rubbish. Why isn't your theory rubbish?

Evidence is funny stuff. It allows you to talk about history. If you have a historical core theory, it means you want to talk about history, yet you say you don't. Go figure.

Without ever meeting of him or hearing about him from anyone else?

Are you deliberately misrepresenting a theory you've been told about several times or are you simply incapable of understanding simple English?

How many times have you been told that Paul says that he didn't get his information from anyone else? He had his gospel and Jesus revealed to him by god.

Don't waste your time and other readers' time, not considering the basic facts presented to you.

And you are still unable to deal with the problem posed to you.

Paul says he got his information about Jesus from god, without hearing about him from anyone else.

It took him 17 years to check out his gospel with other messianists (Gal 2:2), so apparently yes.

So you happily accept that Pilate was gay. Plausibility is insufficient. It is also meaningless for our purposes here.

Still refusing to deal with what Paul states: he knowledge of Jesus didn't come from hearing about him from anyone else.

For Paul to initiate his religion, his revelation was sufficient. There may have been others (of whom we have no tangible evidence). Who invented calculus, was it Newton or Leibnitz? Fortunately we know that there were both who worked independently. If you would like to propose some other initiators from the available evidence I'll listen.

It is part of his gospel. Jesus came to present a new way for redemption, ie circumventing the pain of the law.

It is what he frequently evokes when dealing with his opponents in Galatians. That Jesus offers redemption is part of his gospel. The consequences are that the law has been circumvented through belief in Jesus.

It is sufficient that Paul saw the consequences that he did from his vision. It can take a while to "understand" your revelation.

But I don't need to. He says his gospel came from the revelation. That doesn't prevent him from extrapolating.

I can understand that. Just forget about it. If a periphrastic means of communication doesn't work, try something else.

The idea was merely that a religious idea can have necessities, such as the belief of Jesus dying in the real world, in order for the idea to be meaningful.

Stop projecting. To understand the creation story a believer has to see that after god's labors for six days he rested. If they weren't six ordinary says or if god didn't really rest on the seventh, the sabbath wouldn't be significant.

As much as you need any evidence for yours?

I've given you enough for you to understand the hypothesis and work with it. You are kidding yourself if you want more from me when you are not prepared to provide anything.

You're right: you haven't given anything so we can't compare whatever it is you think your historical core hypothesis is based on to anything else.

You've given it a name and nothing else. You may as well devise something you call a "historical core hypothesis" for Pinocchio.


spin

aa5874

The historical silence for the writer called Paul is NOT understandable at all.

The writer called Paul claimed he persecuted Jesus believers possibly from sometime around the days of Aretas.

The writer called Paul wrote letters that became sacred according to church writers. The writer Paul wrote more letters that were canonised than any other writer in the history of the Church.

The church writers claimed he travelled all over the empire preaching, and was beaten, stoned and imprisonned.

Based on church writings the writer called Paul was eventually crucified after about perhaps 25-30 years of preaching and missionary work, far exceeding Jesus as written in the Gospels.

Yet Paul is unknown, he cannot be accounted for external of his own letters. The church writers did not realise there more than one person using the name Paul.

The writer cannot becorroborated externaly, even internally, he is known just as a letter writer. One source mentioned Paul by name, but that source is also questionable.

And what is even more alarming, there are no eyewitness accounts of the writer called Paul, even though in his letters, and from church writings, he started or helped to start many churches and knew probably hundreds of persons.

And further, if the letters of Paul were written since the middle of the 1st century and became sacred, why are there no variants of these letters, why are there no spurious letters of Paul, like Clement who it is claimed wrote later than Paul?

There are more spurious letters of Clement, possibly one single letter that is regarded as genuine.

One would expect there to be numerous spurious letters with the name Paul recognised by the church writers very early. There are virtually no reports in antiquity of spurious letters using the name Paul. Eusebius declared all the letters with the name Paul as genuine.

The historical silence of the writer called Paul is extremely problematic.

dog-on

Cool.

Off Topic:

(As a side note, do you think Jim Jones, Joseph Smith or L. Ron "made it up" and, if so, can you think of one instance, where we have decent data, that the case was not intentional fabrication?)