mountainman

g'day K,

Until the fat lady has sung the opera is not over.
There's no need to throw popcorn at others in the audience.
It could lead to a popcorn fight in the aisles.

I will meditate on the notion that the "Worthless nonsense of crackpot conspiracy theories" may one day go further in providing the best overall explanation of all the huge field of evidence than any other theory. I think the key player is Constantine and then the regime which inherited the "Christian Monotheistic State Church" after the Boss went to the underworld, followed a year or two later by Big E.

I also suggest you read "AD 381" by Freeman. Freeman does not need to resort to "conspiracy theory" when he summarises his entire book as follows:


Was there a conspiracy revealed?
Um, no - it was simply imperial power.



I read it a few times and had a few double-takes.
I just asked the question for clarification purposes.




In a nutshell ? OK. So "Paul" is to be seen as the missing link between ancient history and the spiritual world, who stands on the scene like a "Pontifex Maximus" or "Bridge-Maker", and resolves all historical difficulties

But how are we supposed to tell the difference between a real historical spiritual being and a pseudo-historical spiritual being in the service of the monotheistic state? I have not studied how Earl paints the picture of his Eusebius.


Pete

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, of course most modern people don't believe in spiritual beings - but that's NOT the point.

The point is that Paul DID believe in a real spiritual Jesus - a real spiritual heavenly being who really existed (according to Earl's JM theory.)

It's a puzzle why this simple concept seems so hard to grasp around here.

After YEARS of posting about Earl's JMT's Paul's Jesus being a real spiritual being, few people here ever get the point :-(


K.

aa5874

What absurdity!!!! There is NO such thing as REAL Myth. Myth is Fiction. There is NO such thing as a REAL spirit.

In the NT Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, a PHANTOM, a MYTH, Fiction, that WALKED on water and Transfigured.

Kapyong

Gday,

Clarification?

I already made it crystal clear I was referring to a real spiritual being - I SAID SO multiple times. I have also said so many dozens of times over the past few years here.

Why is it so hard to grasp this simple concept?

According to Earl's JM theory, Paul believed in a REAL HEAVENLY being.
How many more YEARS will this have to be repeated?


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

Rank idiocy.
I didn't say Jesus was a "REAL spirit".
That's why no-one here bothers with your stupid posts.
If only you could read and comprehend English.

After all these years, you still have no idea what Earl's JM theory is all about.


K.

mountainman

According to what I read in "Church History" -- Eusebius's HJ Theory -- Eusebius also believed in a REAL HEAVENLY being, and needless to say, possibly more than one.

I would like to know how Earl's JM theory deals with the relationship between "Paul" and "Eusebius" and whether this theory is reliant upon the historicity of "Paul". And other questions such as what is the the identity of the author standing behind the 4th century "Paul" who wrote the correspondence to Seneca, and the rescripts of Seneca back to "Paul"? And such as what about the abundant evidence of fraud and pious forgery in the Pauline corpus. Etc etc etc.

In short, accepting Earl's MJ, when and where abouts does the MJ shit hit the historical fan?
WHO were the canonical authors and who were the gnostic heretical authors?
WHEN and WHERE does the MYTH get interfaced to the ancient historical (theoretical) reality and where's your evidence?


Is it "Paul" all the way down?


Until people start to trust the chronology of the C14 results
over that furnished via the Eusebian heresiology, and begin
to ask the obvious questions about war and power in antiquity.

Sheshbazzar

Oh I don't doubt that 'Paul' (or all those writers pretending to be 'Paul') believed in 'spiritual' beings (as hundreds of millions of superstitious Christians claim they still do)

That they may be sincere in their belief in the existence of such non-corporeal entities, and manage to convince themselves these invisible beings are actually communicating with them does nothing at all to make these imaginary spiritual entities any part of the real world. Never has, never will.

Zombie Jebus and his troop of zany -spiritual- and invisable characters only exist within the infected and demented minds of the religionists, not in any reality.

Kapyong

Gday,

Indeed.
So WHO claimed that spiritual beings really existed?
Why do you repeat this point ?
Does anyone here claim heavenly beings really existed ?
Who do you think you are arguing with?


K.

mountainman

At the end of the day the historical arguments (and evidence) must be for or against the integrity of "the wonderful story of history" by Big E.

J-D

If any work which contains even one supernatural reference is therefore to be regarded as a work of fiction and not historical, then, for example, Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars (De Vita Caesarum) should be regarded as a work of fiction, since it contains many references to supernatural events which could not possibly have literally taken place as described. But Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars is not generally regarded as a work of fiction just because it incorporates reference to supernatural events. It is generally regarded as a historical work. aa5874 has cited it more than once as such. There are a number of works from antiquity which contain references to supernatural events which could not possibly have taken place and which are nevertheless generally regarded as historical works and not fictional ones. So you are applying a standard which is not generally accepted and may be peculiarly alone.

Further, even by your own standards, and even if it’s accepted that by your standards the canonical Gospels are fictional works, you acknowledge that it’s possible for historical characters to appear in fictional works. You acknowledge this when you indicate that you regard the Romance Of The Three Kingdoms but also that you regard the character of Cao Cao, as appearing in that work, as a historical character. You acknowledge it again when you say that you don’t know whether John the Baptist was real or fictional, since saying that entails you acknowledge the possibility that he’s a historical character despite appearing as a character in works (the canonical Gospels) which you consider to be fictional. But if you acknowledge that it is possible for historical characters to appear in fictional works, then by your own standards the fact (by your standards) that the canonical Gospels are fictional works is not sufficient by itself to establish that the character of Jesus appearing in those works is fictional and not historical. John the Baptist and Jesus appear as characters in the same works (the canonical Gospels): if you don’t know whether the character of John the Baptist was real or fictional, how do you know whether the character of Jesus was real or fictional?

In the Greek work of the third century BCE, sometimes known as the ‘Greek Alexander romance’, or the ‘Historia Alexandri Magni [Story Of Alexander The Great]’, or the ‘Pseudo-Callisthenes’ (because at a later date than its actual writing it was sometimes incorrectly attributed to Alexander The Great’s historian Callisthenes), there are statements about a character named as Alexander. Many of these statements are known not to be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, and some of them refer to supernatural circumstances that could not possibly have literally taken place as described. The work is not generally regarded as historical, and I guess that by your standards it would count as a fictional work (and perhaps it would by other people’s standards as well). But you acknowledge the possibility of historical characters appearing in fictional works. Would you say that the character of Alexander is historical or fictional? Would you say that he had DNA? Why or why not?

The seventeenth-century English doctor Richard Wiseman wrote a treatise on medical subjects in which he described King Charles II of England as curing people of scrofula (known as ‘the King’s evil) just by touching them. It is not possible for anybody, even a king, to cure people of scrofula literally just by the virtue of a touch. Would you say that Wiseman’s treatise was a fictional work? Would you say that the character of King Charles II of England, as appearing in that treatise, was historical or fictional? Would you say that he had DNA? Why or why not?

Do you have any basis for excluding the possibility that there lived at one time a real person with DNA in whose life there occurred some events which literally corresponded with some (but not all) of the statements using the name Jesus found in the canonical Gospels? Indeed, do you definitely exclude that as a possibility, or do you accept that it may be true? Why or why not?