Elijah

I’ll need you to illustrate what you believe happened for me to get the point.
Something happened or we wouldn’t be talking about him would we?
If the Ebionites thought their leader was a real man named Ebion then your example would have merit.
I don’t recall your exact process or particular myth theory, but regardless they all get thrown in the same box of trying to disprove the existence of Jesus. I remember you as not wanting to choose a side so no one could be critical of anything you believed.
Tertullian wasn’t an Ebionite so him making a mistake in the history of the religion is expected and didn’t produce a widespread belief. The same can’t be said for Christianity and that needs to be explained.

You wouldn’t be much of a follower of someone if you didn’t know if the person he was speaking about was real or spiritual.
Regardless of your particular theory and word choices, do you think you can show Paul is the source?
That doesn’t explain to me what you think happened.
What makes the revelation theory more functional and concise than the historical core?

I have stated that the historical core is the sacrifice that started the line of martyrs, the martyrs being what spreads the conviction in Jesus. What would you need to know?
Whether it was made up from a myth or fiction or revelation is fairly secondary to explaining how it was confused for history.
No, I’m just throwing your revelation theory in with the other myth theories because I don’t see that much of a difference. I realize you like your theory to be called revelation core theory and I will try to remember that.
Are you saying you don’t believe in the myth theory because you believe in the revelation core theory or that you’re agnostic towards all the theories because of a lack of evidence?

spin

What I tried to get you to realize in a previous incarnation of this discussion, is that I don't necessarily believe any of it. Believing things like this, as you have done, is close to a guarantee of preventing you from understanding anything.

To get you to stop waffling about historical cores that you have no possibility of ever verifying, I show that there are other ways of explaining the evidence we have, so that you should see that no single hypothesis has the ability to make itself preferable on merit.

I don't understand what you need to illustrate the hypothesis that Paul founded christianity. Read what he says without the apologetic handcuffs; he had a revelation; he took what it gave him and converted people to a new religion. And they in turn believed in what Paul gave them and passed it on. Everyone today who is a christian is in the same boat: they believe in a figure who they've never met and seen no evidence for.

Paul specifically says that his gospel was not received from other people, not was he taught it, but that it came from a revelation by god of Jesus (Gal 1:11-12). Why don't you listen to him and contemplate what he says?

Him who? Paul or Jesus? Or someone else?

The name "Ebion" comes from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew source of the Ebionites. The Hebrew word (BYWN means "poor". The Ebionym are the poor ones. People like Tertullian were not big on Semitic languages, so they didn't know. They merely believed that there was an Ebion who founded the Ebionite movement, just as you believe that there was a Jesus who founded the christian movement.

What the Ebionites believed is irrelevant to the process of bringing non-real entities into the real world (reification). If Tertullian or his sources can do it, why can't Paul? His revelation was all he needed to believe that there was a real messiah.

You have it time and again. Somebody spreads a new religion:

Zoroaster - Mazdaism
Siddhartha - Buddhism
Guru Nanak - Sikhism
Mani - Manichaeism
Mohammed - Islam
Bahaullah - Bahai

what is strange about

Paul - soteriological messianism (ie christianity)

?

Perhaps you think I was kidding when I said, "I don't fucking believe in a myth theory." Christianity starting with Paul's revelation is not a myth theory. There is no mythology here. Paul believed, rather than waiting for a messiah, that the messiah had already come. There are lots of whacky beliefs in this world today: Eve was created from Adam's rib, a world flood, stars guide your destiny, ghosts, reincarnation. Is it hard to believe that in a far more arcane world of the time of Paul that he could believe that his revelation was related to the real world? His followers believed him.

You seem to need extra hand-holding on a rather simple situation. You want to believe that there must have been a Jesus, who Paul never met, who none of his converts ever met, nor did any of them need to believe in Paul's gospel. It is sufficient that there was the idea of a figure who relieved them of their sins.

This is a non sequitur. Besides, trying to disprove Jesus is not necessary until there is some tangible evidence for Jesus. All you have to do is extract history from the tradition. Go ahead. Try.

You are dazed and confused in your rationale. As you cannot understand your responsibilities, ie don't jump into something until you know what's there, you make false accusations.

You can read many of my views on this forum. When I think there is evidence for something, I'll ram it down your throat. When there isn't, I let you know.

Again lack of logic. The mistake was made. You don't want to deal with it. Non-real entities can be thought to be real. Paul only needed a revelation to spread his religion.

Non sequitur. Who of Paul's converts didn't believe that Jesus was real -- without ever knowing whether he was or not?

It is sufficient for me to show that Paul didn't need prior sources (see Gal 1:11-12).

But you already know the scenario I have presented. Deal with it meaningfully, ie deal with Paul when he says that his gospel was not from man or taught to him, but received by revelation.

I can demonstrate that Paul claims a revelation, which is sufficient to start his religion. So far you haven't been able to demonstrate diddley squat.

You're so "nothing up your sleeve", that Bullwinkle would be proud of you.

Evidence for this supposed historical core. I won't hold my breath waiting for you. You don't understand what you need to provide.

Gosh, you are so dully painful. You are projecting you ignorant views of history onto the past. Stop it.

It is sufficient that Paul told his followers that Jesus was real for them to believe Jesus was real. End of story. When you accept a tradition you accept it is real.

"[O]ther"? Why do you insist that a hypothesis based on Paul's revelation must be a myth theory? I have told you numerous times that it isn't. Are you so hard of reading that I have to write it for your more times?

If Paul says that Jesus was real, then where is the scope for myth?? When you are wrong you should try and correct your own errors. Do so, please.

I have never believed in a myth theory. I have never seen sufficient evidence to make it appear probable. It's no less probable than a historical core theory.

I am agnostic towards all theories. One functional theory makes any other theory nothing more than just another theory.

Reading Paul for what he says (rather than what posterity says he says) provides a functional theory: Paul clearly states he didn't get his gospel from previous sources, so no previous source is necessary for his religion or converts. Deal with it.


spin

dog-on

Which is another way of saying that Paul made it up.

Indeed.

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles was not canonised because it was "shady". Based on the church writers, Acts of the Apostles is a true historical account of the apostles and Saul/Paul.

And, Acts of the Apostles is in fact more favourable to Saul/Paul. Peter was eliminated from Acts of the Apostles from the 15th chapter and not a single word or reference was made to Peter after that.

All the remaiming 13 chapters of Acts of the Apostles were devoted to Paul.

spin

When you make something up, it is conscious will to "fabricate" reality.

One of the biggest problems I have in these discussions is the impreciseness of language people use to talk about the issues. Sloppy understandings of "myth" and "fiction", for example, make it hard to communicate ideas. Thinking that something is fiction for example brings a person into making assumptions that are not appropriate, such as that the writer was fabricating or committing some kind of fraudulent act, making it extremely hard for the person to understand the material under analysis.

If Paul can believe that Jesus was real, then saying he "made it up" should seem highly improbable to you.


spin

dog-on

I do not know what Paul, in truth, actually believed. Never got the chance to ask him...

Unless you have some evidence that Paul simply lied regarding his sources or, that he was mentally unstable, we are left with the following:

We know that revelations from God are the least likely of all relevant possibilities.

Therefore, if we take Paul, at what he says, based on what we have, the most probable solution is that Paul made it up based on materials he derived from the LXX.


I see nothing else that can be supported with the current available evidence.

bacht

Thanks spin. I know you've laid out your ideas here before, but this is a nice summary.

I guess one could quibble about 'myth' in terms of whether someone like Jesus the Nazarene lived in 1st C Palestine as described in the gospels, maybe this is Elijah's hangup.

You've probably done this already, but can you explain the link between Paul's revealed Christ and the apparently "real" Jesus of Mark et al?

dog-on

Mark was the answer given to gentile children when they asked the question,"but daddy, why did God kick the Jews to the curb?".

bacht

Could be. Maybe after the second revolt there was a perceived need to explain the catastrophe that befell "the chosen people"

aa5874

But, it cannot be true that the most probable solution to the information in the letters from the writer called Paul about Jesus is based on materials he derived from the LXX, unless it is assumed what is NOT known.

It is not known for certain that the writer called Paul wrote in the 1st century.

The assumption that the writer called Paul wrote in the 1st century cannot be corroborated , it based on some other writer whose writing is also questionable.

And, if you take Paul on what he says, then how did he arrive at the time of resurrection of Jesus after his so-called death?

Where did the writer get the information that Jesus was raised on the third day?

There is no time given in the LXX for the resurrection of anyone who died during the reign of Tiberius.

It is probable the writer did not get his information from the LXX.