aa5874

But, this is extremely odd.

If you are not to worried about trying to get evidence, you must have guessed something happened 2000 years ago.

I think getting information is extremely vital in presenting a theory that is why I can say today, without fear of contradiction, that Jesus as presented was a MYTH.

Elijah

I didn't guess, I just tried to read the texts that remain with a rational outlook and not like they were myths and the suicide man was the result.

No you can't, you can't show that the writer didn't believe that what he was writing was true. You don't know what they believed was possible then.

Clivedurdle

Or reporting an interpretation of Jonah - an early version of hyper reality.

spin

Not a hole.

Traditions get regularly confused with reality (talking of "history" here is only your confusion). Paul believed his revelation was a reality. Those people who received Paul's tradition believed it was reality -- just as Tertullian believed that Ebion was a reality.

Not a hole but a plea by you for clarity.

You are having difficulties understanding what holes are. Paul was writing before Mark was written. It is irrelevant to Paul.

Yet another non-hole. You cannot perform your own task of finding holes..

You are assuming a single author of the gospel of Mark and the name of that author was "Mark".

Who cares? NOT A HOLE.

Not a hole. And a totally inapt dichotomy of species categories for the time.

Not a hole. Do you know what a hole is? F'chrissake, a hole is something that gives a position problems. Not one so far does so.

Can you name one guaranteed pre-existent christian??

Who cares?

What do you mean by "fictional"? Fiction is something made up by someone. Fiction implies intention to make something up. I doubt that Paul consciously made anything up as an instance of creating fiction. For me the term is not appropriate.

You are totally off-beam in your efforts to find "holes" in the argument you were presented. You don't seem to understand what is required of you when you should point out holes.

There are a number of possibilities for Paul's revelation (beside him making it all up):

1. communication from god
2. psychotic break
3. dream
4. recognition of what seems must be (requires contemplation of possibilities)
5. (add your own)

There is no need to contemplate fiction. It is a rather unlikely option. What we have is an amorphous collection of traditions.

Finding any reality in that collection is an extremely hard task. The onus is on the person claiming reality to demonstrate it. You Elijah, have failed ever to do so.

You have failed to show reason for you assuming the position in which you think you are right. You seem incapable of dealing with the relevant issues.

Reading through this thread has been one of finding assumption after assumption that you never justify. Don't you wonder why rlogan decided to put you on ignore?

This post should be called "looking for clues". You don't seem to have any.


spin

I'm fixin' a hole
that runs through my door
and stops my mind from wandering
where it will go.......

Elijah

A hole would be a lack of information in a theory. Like where it came from and how it was confused for history… things like that.
A theory lacking the basic information to understand what the theory is actually saying happened I would consider full of holes.
No idea the point or the personal myth theory you are trying to push forward here.
My reasoning for assuming my position is right is a failure to see a logical alternative position. The failure of the myther to present a complete theory which explains the origin of the story and how it was confused for history is why I go with a simple historical core.
[quote[Reading through this thread has been one of finding assumption after assumption that you never justify. Don't you wonder why rlogan decided to put you on ignore?[/quote]
I just figured it was asking questions of his beliefs that he didn’t have answers for.
No clues (that I can discuss) on how anyone could believe such a half thought-out theory. You may be agnostic towards all theories saying there isn’t enough information to believe one way or another but I’m going with the more complete theory instead of the hypothetical theory that doesn’t really seem to exist.

spin

OK, you have a personal understanding of the term.

But now you are off on a theoretical tangent. You need to deal with facts.

You are forgetful. You have been in discussions with me in the past. Or maybe you just don't understand what people say to you so you go on ignoring the information.

You have shown no failure in the notion that the christian religion started with Paul. All you have done is tried ineffectually to create problems with the notion. Paul himself is clear: he got his gospel from revelation (Gal 1:11-12). He needed no historical figure on which to base his religion. If you cannot deal with this then say so. If you cannot understand it, say so.

Omitted rubbish about mythicism. That Paul started christianity does not n necessarily have anything to do with myth. Do you understand? Paul only needs to believe that his revealed Jesus did what the revelation led him to believe.

Many of your questions were simply irrelevant. Relevance is valued in discussion.

That explains your half-thought-out position.

Rubbish. You have nothing better than a more complex, less credible theory. That Paul started christianity is briefer. He says he got his ideas from revelation, not from other people. Why don't you believe him?

We can see that much of christianity is developmental. Stories about fantastic births, big time genealogies, stories about temptations, resurrection stories, etc. Where does the fact come into the gospel accounts? That is your problem to demonstrate. And you haven't even tried, because you're happy with your little theory. -- But don't worry, you're not alone. Very many people are just as deep in their beliefs.


spin

Elijah

That Paul started Christianity and was confused for history isn’t briefer it just isn’t bothered being explained. The whole revelation thing is kind of secondary to what the revelation was about in understanding how it was confused for history.
Not understanding the question here. Are you asking what the historical core is? Does that need to be explained again or do you have some problem with seeing the possibility?

spin

Probably because you misunderstand both the concept you are trying to dismiss and how traditions were perceived in antiquity.

History is a relatively modern idea. In ancient times you just had "story" -- some of which was about what happened in the past.

I said clearly that Paul believed his Jesus was real. He didn't need to know anything about a real him to believe he was real.

People believed in the reality of their traditions. People believed that Rome was founded by a descendant of Aeneas. People believed that the gods were on the field with the Greeks at Troy. People believed that Nebuchadnezzar had a mental breakdown (thanks to the Daniel tradition). People believed that Paul's messiah was real and was crucified.

Paul tells us that his gospel was what was revealed to him, a gospel concerning the crucified christ.

Get this confusion with history out of your head. It is your confusion. They didn't do history then. You are retrojecting your own pervesions onto the past.

Naturally. There was no question. I was explaining why you are in your state of confusion and that you were not alone.

Well, yes, if you think there is a historical core, you need to be able to demonstrate it -- not just state that there is one in your opinion --, if you want to talk about it. If you only believe there is a historical core, join the unthinking christians.


spin

Elijah

Regardless of how you consider history was treated back then you still need to illustrate what you believe happened.
None of this explains your theory on what you believed happened with Jesus. Paul had a vision of a guy and some people thought he was real sounds nice but what people, when and why?
So? Do you think you can really build a myth case out of that? Do you think you can convincingly show that he invented him in the revelation and not that he was having a revelation about someone?
If you don’t have a logical explanation for how this story went from myth to history then you don’t have any myth theory at all. With no myth theory being presented there is no reason to believe in one.
So you have no objections to the historical core hypothesis, you just want more evidence for it? The evidence game isn’t the conversation right now, it’s competing hypotheses and if you see no reason to dismiss the historical core and no reason behind how a myth was confused for history then I don’t really see what we have to talk about.

If you believe there is a myth theory that explains the Jesus phenomenon and that the historical core isn’t possible then join the unthinking skeptics.

aa5874

You think producing evidence is a game. That is so absurd.

It is those who have no evidence for the historical Jesus who play games.

You have already claimed you have no-good evidence for your Jesus.

Stop playing games.