GakuseiDon

Steven, creationists can't handle questions about creationism. They always bring the focus back to their so-called problems with evolution. Can we continue to focus on the case for mythicism, please? Or is that over, from your perspective?

What are the supported readings for "kata sarka", that might support the idea that Paul had a mythical Christ in mind?

GakuseiDon

These apparently support my reading of Paul. How do you see them supporting a mythical reading?

Steven Carr

The fact that he has to use it at all.

Care to present the case that a historical Jesus told his followers how to obtain access to his body in a ritual meal just hours before he was betrayed?

Steven Carr

I have already said there is prima facie evidence in Paul for a historical Jesus.

Just like Benjamin Creme can tell you that the Maitreya is living as a Muslim in the East End of London.....

Are you claiming the Milesian Apollo existed? Or that Paul thought of Jesus as having existed recently in a Jerusalem on Earth, as opposed to the Jerusalem above us?

Paul claimed the deliverer came from Zion. How could Jesus of Nazareth have come from Zion?

GakuseiDon

Paul used it with regards to his countrymen in the passage I gave earlier, so I don't know what you mean. How does the fact that he also uses it for Jesus make it a problem?

As I said, creationists can't handle questions about creationism. They always bring the focus back to their so-called problems with evolution. How is it relevant to a case for mythicism?

GakuseiDon

Steven, creationists can't handle questions about creationism. They always bring the focus back to their so-called problems with evolution. How are your comments here part of a case for mythicism? I'm not saying they're not, but I don't see the relevance. Is your case for mythicism finished?

Steven Carr

So GDon cannot begin to defend against the obvious fact that having a revelation from the Lord about how to obtain access to a flesh and blood body is such a blatant bit of evidence for a myth that he ducks all questions on it.

What exactly do historicists want? A flesh and blood body conjured up in a ritual meal?

You already can read about that. What more do you want as a positive case?

Do you want Paul to start talking about telepathic communications like Benjamin Creme does about the Maitreya?

Do you want Paul to start explaining that people were sent to preach about Jesus, like Benjamin Creme does about the Maitreya?

Do you want Paul to start giving words from the Lord like Benjamin Creme does about the Maitreya?

GakuseiDon

Steven, I just don't see the relevance. You can keep bringing up questions until the cows come home, but it doesn't provide analysis for a mythicist case. How does this support the mythicist case?

I hope people can see here how the analogy to creationism stands. It isn't the merits of the case -- the evidence for evolution is much stronger than that for a historical Jesus. But it is in how their case is presented: rather than analysis for mythicism, we get only questions about historicism. Of course, there may not be enough evidence to support EITHER side. But how does this help support mythicism?

Ask yourselves: How do creationists go about proving creationism? By presenting a good strong positive case for creationism? Or by constant questioning of bits of evolution, the same questions again and again, trying to put doubts in the minds of people and to bolster the minds of true creationist believers?

Now look at Steven's approach. Can anyone see the same approach being used? I've asked for the case for mythicism. He is raising questions about historicism. Does raising questions about evolution support creationism? Does ANYONE want to claim that? So why does it make sense to do it here, when it is the mythicist case that we want to examine?

Remember what Neil Godfrey said: he wants people to be "serious about understanding the mythicist case". He doesn't want people to "embrace rumour or second hand information". Is Steven supporting this? Is he making a good case for mythicism? Like it or not, this is how Steven "supports" mythicism throughout the Internet. He is how mythicists are perceived to argue.

Remember, the analogy between some mythicists and creationism is NOT the merits of the respective cases for historicism and evolution. It is the approach that creationists and some mythicists use. If anything comes out of this thread, I hope that this point has been driven home.

Now, let's get back to the case for mythicism.

maryhelena

Paul? I thought the present debate is over the assumption re Jesus of the gospel storyline being a historical figure....

Don, whatever the imaginings of the apostle Paul, whatever the theological trip he was on - while interesting and even entertaining to our modern day minds - ultimately, his ideas, his thoughts, are his alone. Who knows exactly what he was trying to communicate at that historical time period. What is more important for us today - if we are seeking to find some saving grace within his words - is to update them, to make sense of them for our modern world. Find some philosophy in them, find some psychology in them...

As to Paul's Jewish or Israelite references - whatever, when one is dealing with spiritual constructs there are no boundaries. Was Paul, in some way, making reference to the gospel storyline re Jesus. Perhaps. But, Don, is it not that very storyline that is up for questioning - and when we do that, question the gospel storyline - then we cannot ignore Marcion and his heresy re a non-Jewish Jesus and his, seemingly, desire to remove, or at least to undercut, any Jewish OT prophecies being applicable to his Jesus figure.

We are in heresy land here I'm afraid....by all means take a trip with Paul - but if its an understanding of early Christian history that we are after - that will not be ascertained by what we may interpret Paul to have been saying....

aa5874

Actually there is NO prima facie evidence for an historical Jesus in the Pauline writings when the Pauline writers would Not have worshiped a man as a God.

If the Pauline writers propagated that they and other Jesus believers were in fact worshiping a man as a God then they were no better than the people who worshiped and deified Roman Emperors.

And, it was the fundamental doctrine of Jesus believers not to worship men or even Emperors as Gods.

Jesus believers either knew, believed, or accepted that Jesus was an actual God who only temporarily took on the form of a man.

A Pauline writer clearly stated his position about Jesus in Galatians.

Ga 1:1 - There is simply no precedent or prima facie evidence for Jesus believers to have condoned and were participating in the worship of a man as a God while at the same time preaching against the worshiping of the created instead of the Creator.

Jesus believers would have ONLY worshiped a Creator not the created.

It is therefore highly improbable and implausible that the Pauline Jesus was known and considered to be ONLY human.