Amaleq13

You have no apparent basis for this probability estimate of "most likely" beyond a personal preference.

You've been given sufficient information to comprehend the concept if you gave any genuine thought to what you've been told both here and in previous threads. However, I see no indication in your responses that you've even read what was posted let alone actually given it serious consideration.

If you understood the process that resulted in Ebion, you would understand how it applies to Jesus.

If you had shown any indication of interest in actually understanding the comparison, this judgment might be relevant.

Why make it so obvious that you haven't even tried?

Calling someone a troll is not a description of their posts or their behavior. It is a description of their thinking as they posted and requires that you know what they were thinking when they posted. You don't so stop pretending that you can read other people's minds. If you require more clarity on the issue, send me a PM.

So you don't understand that apparent flaws in alternate hypotheses do nothing to increase the probability that yours is correct?

Amaleq13

Attempts to use Acts have already been challenged for support:

Elijah

Stop with the word games and try and act like you can understand the conversation.
So you’re pulling your whole theory out of your interpretation of that one passage? So it’s obvious you don’t have enough information about Paul’s revelation or the impact of it based on that passage for me to bother even asking any further about your theory.
So you don’t know.
Back to Ebion again? Are you saying Paul made a mistake about the founder of the Christians he was persecuting? Again how does someone come and sacrifice themselves and not be real/historical?
No it’s obvious you don’t know and you’re just throwing a half thought out theory hoping no one would notice.
Nothing if not repetitive.
Sure they do, they are all what you believe happened to create the story of Jesus. And they all fall into a non historical origin category that gets labeled myth for convenience.
Then he existed and was historical because he impacted history.
No need to go into why you view some texts more credible then others right now. I don’t care, that’s for later.
So there are preexistent Christians before Paul? And Paul is persecuting them?

Yes I’m misconceiving what you are saying because I don’t know what you are suggesting Paul believed.
Galatians 1:22-24

Now please with what you believe they were being persecuted for and what that belief is based on.
Yea showed him to him, as in who he was. He didn’t manufacture him as a ghost for him. I think it’s your understanding of the nature of the revelation that is making it difficult to comprehend what you are suggesting.
Not able to answer my questions about the nature of the proto gospels but you know how they evolved?
So you have no idea on how the story evolved from a revelation to a historical figure beyond a basic premise of someone had a revelation that was confused for history.
Don’t know what stories you are talking about, but I’ll take this as a giant hole in trying to explain your theory.
No explanation on the nature of Paul’s revelation but I’m sure you got it right. Where do you think his revelation came from really? I believe what he says just not your interpretation of it.
His eureka moment was realizing that the people he was persecuting was right and they guy was the messiah.

When you continue to play word games the chance of meaningful conversation also decreases.
No one told him about his gospel but what is that? What is his good news?
It’s not hard to grasp, it’s hard to consider as a possible interpretation and just looks like seeing what you want to see.
Assumption. Just because his gospel came from revelation doesn’t mean he had never heard of him. In the letter you are referencing he is persecuting the Church of God before his revelation so he obviously knew of them but he didn’t believe that Jesus was the messiah until he had a vision.
What is there to learn about Jesus? It’s about believing in him not knowing stuff about him.
That doesn’t tell me what you interpret his beliefs to be.
Do you really think that is even a possibility? Or is this just another one of your games?
So then how do you not believe in a historical core then?

He said he only baptized two people and a household while speaking out against the idea of having followers. 1 Corinthians 1:12 Should I go with that or did you want to bother with what you believe happened and actually support your theory?
No terminology is a continued game with you. Instead of addressing the issues, which would only reveal holes in your theory, you want to play word games.
I’m probably not going to be using the word “real” too broad.
Yea but it requires me to read between the lines and try to imagine what you think actually happened and I’m having a hard time imagining anything that is likely.
My word selection should have no influence on understanding your theory. It’s not possible for my word selection to be causing you problems with articulating your position… It’s just another game.
That or looking for a serious conversation.

Elijah

So you have no idea or facts relating to the possibility of a myth being created and confused for history in regards to Jesus? So you believe in a historical core?

As we have already said you can’t demonstrate that the writers didn’t believe that was possible so this does nothing for demonstrating that Jesus was mythical.
We have also went over this and there is no reason to expect any credible evidence to remain of some like him from 2000 years ago. You know this already yet you continue with this line of argument, why?
But you still believe in a historical core right? You have no evidence or reason to believe in a mythical origin and no argument against a historical core so it must be so.

Elijah

If an alternate theory can’t be presented that shows how the event could have occurred then the one theory we do have that explains it is the “most likely”. Personal preference comes when tailoring your own individual myth theory.
I understand the concept of a revelation was confused for history but him laying it out in way that makes sense and coincides with what we know about history is what I’m talking about. Of course I’ve gave this consideration that’s why I realize where the holes are in the theory.

There was a guy and he had a vision and they thought it was real is not enough information to determine if that theory is a possibility in this instance and if you can’t even imagine the information (without having to support it) then I have a hard time imagining the possibility of the theory being sound.
Are you suggesting that Paul made a mistake about the founder of the Christians he was persecuting like with Ebion?
I understand the comparison but they aren’t very similar and if that is the best example the myth side has then they have a difficult case to make about Jesus being such a unique example of myth to history.

You had an opportunity to show you understood the crux of his point.
You seem to know what I was thinking when I was using that word, but don’t worry I won’t use the word again. I get that it’s not approved of.
If you have only one theory which can explain the data then that is the most likely theory. The flaws in the other theories don’t improve the probability of the one theory but decreases the probability of their own making the one the most probable.

aa5874

Please read Matthew 1.18 and Acts 1.9 and tell me what you think about the myth.


Please give the evidence for what you think is possible. Anything can be imagined when you are working from a blank sheet of paper.

You have no evidence for your position! You are just wasting time.

I can show you a myth. Look at Matthew1.18 and Acts 1.9. You see the myth, now.



That is your evidence. Questions are your evidence for your Jesus! A complete waste of time.

Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost and Achilles, the offspring of the sea-goddess were presented with the same core, the offspring of mythical cores.

Elijah

When/if you get down an argument for a mythical origin or an argument against a historical core you should get back to me.

aa5874

You have nothing.

I cannot get anything from you.

You have already admitted that you have no evidence for your Jesus and do not expect any.

I will be here with Matthew1.18 and Acts 1.9 where the offspring of the Holy Ghost was seen ascending through the clouds, witnessed by his disciples.

By the way, it is written that the offspring of the Holy Ghost is coming back, maybe you'll get some evidence, then.

You may need a special camera, one that can capture the creature as described in Matthew 1.18,

Ask Marcion, he knows how to see them or people that can see them.

spin

You are working from Acts, which is often in conflict with what Paul wrote. Acts is a church history and cannot be shown to have been written within a hundred years of the events it purports to know about.

You cannot get the sort of stuff you want from Paul. In fact Paul contradicts what you are saying in Gal 1:11-12.


spin

aa5874

But, this is the letter writer called Paul in Galatians.

Galatians 1.20-23 The letter writer wrote that there were churches in Christ that did even know him or saw him yet.

Now, if two statements are in conflict, it is never mandatory that one must be true, both may be false.

No matter if the author of Acts contradict the letter writer, the author of Acts may indeed be true and the letter writer false, or the reverse, or all may be untrue.

Both the author of Acts of the Apostles and the letter writer called Paul have written information that are implausible and fictitious, they are all not credible.

I am yet to see any evidence to show what is true in the letters with the name Paul with respect to himself, Jesus and the other so-called apostles.